Talk:Malcolm Nance

Let's Talk About Sourcing
First time visitor to this page after seeing the subject on a news talk show this morning. My own background prompted my taking a look at Nance's bonafides. That brought me to Wiki and this page. A quick look shows that after its minimalist inception in 2007, this page sat nearly idle until Dec 16, 2014 when, in a little less than a month Coffeerunner99 added a wealth of material, without sourcing, and all primarily of a personal nature (high school attended, etc.). These were the only contributions Coffeerunner99 made to greater Wikipedia before disenrolling as a Wiki user. (I suspect they were made by Nance.) The accompanying photograph of Malcom Nance was added by SkyhorsePub, also gone from Wiki after this single contribution. Skyhorse Publishing is Malcom Nance's publisher but oddly enough SkyhorsePub never made a contribution to the Wiki article on Skyhorse Publishing. (Those were done by SkyhorseSales1.) But it is the references that are most disturbing. They are a textbook example of circular reporting as nearly every reference is to an article or piece about Malcom Nance that used biographical material ultimately provided by Malcom Nance or his proxies. This article should NOT be an autobiography for the obvious reason - personal interest. Please understand that I do not mean to demean Malcom Nance. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy after high school, went to the Defense Language Institute, had some interesting billets, rose to be a Senior Chief Cryptologist, retired at the first opportunity, earned a college degree online, and parlayed his Navy experience and education into his current occupation of author and pundit. [redacted] Sagecandor, as you appear to have taken ownership of this page of late, I suggest you pull the string on the references and modify this page to reflect the facts. Wiki is better than this. CharleyHart AKA: CarlitosCorazon 09:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC) talk Retired at first opportunity has a connotation..i work with UK police officers..they normally retire at first opportunity after 30 years..so do Colombian military after 25 years..so what — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.197.114.3 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not refer to individual contributors and keep comments focused to specific suggestions about content and sources. Sagecandor (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redacted WP:BLP violations. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK... Here's a specific suggestion as to content and sources: Remove all "circular reporting" content. That means remove all content whose only reference is solely Malcom Nance's biography from his own company, and all other sources that are based on having requested his biography from him. This Wiki article ultimately uses Malcom Nance's self-written biography as its primary sources. That is "circular reporting" with very few facts other than what the subject provided. The veracity of those inputs is most certainly in question. Further, I have now read biographical material of Malcom Nance that used this Wiki article as the source. Thus, this Wiki article is now being used to corroborate his biography, yet the Wiki article is primarily based on his self-written biography. How many ways do I have to say it? Wiki is not autobiographical in nature, nor is it meant to be "advertising". Wiki subjects don't get to control the content of an article about them. Yet, this is exactly what we are facilitating. Here's a test: Try to find one biographical fact - from any source - that isn't ultimately based on the subject's self-written biography.CarlitosCorazon 10:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)
 * Can you please point out some of the facts that fit your description? Part of the issue is that facts which are reported in reliable sources, even if based ultimately on an autobiography, say, are fine for inclusion.  That's why we have the reliable source test: the idea is that said source applies its own standards and fact-checking process to the claims, and prints only those that survive.  Now we all know that this is hardly a fool-proof process.  But if you want to start with some specific edit ideas, we could quickly figure out exactly what we are talking about.  Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy and cogent reply. I do understand that Wiki relies on the source fact-checking the subject's statements. However, in the majority of the references, Nance is the source. Seven of the references are his books; one an article he wrote. Seven of the references are from interviews with him. And ironically, one quotes the biographical material in this Wiki article. There is a dearth of independent sourcing. Below is a detailed break-out. I will volunteer to rewrite this Wiki article but do not want to make the effort if it is simply going to be reverted. CarlitosCorazon 14:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)
 * Ref 1. - From an interview with Nance
 * Ref 2. - An interview with Nance
 * Ref 3. - One of his books
 * Ref 4. - A "speaker" bio that states that he received a degree in Arabic
 * Ref 5. - A review of one of his books
 * Ref 6. - All quoted from this Wiki article
 * Ref 7. - Mentioned in an article on Representative Barbara Lee but nothing related to the germane sentence
 * Ref 8. - Mentioned in an article on Bill Maher but nothing related to the germane sentence
 * Ref 9. - An interview with Nance
 * Ref 10. - An audio interview with Nance
 * Ref 11. - An interview with Nance
 * Ref 12. - A video interview with Nance
 * Ref 13. - Details Nance's appearance before a House constitutional subcommittee
 * Ref 14. - As above
 * Ref 15. - Quotes Nance and refers to him as a security consultant in Baghdad
 * Ref 16. - As above
 * Ref 17. - Quotes Nance speaking to Australian police and refers to him as a security expert
 * Ref 18. - An article by the subject
 * Ref 19. - A brief reference to an interview with Nance
 * Ref 20. - One of his books
 * Ref 21. - One of his books
 * Ref 22. - One of his books
 * Ref 23. - One of his books
 * Ref 24. - One of his books
 * Here's what I would reply! As to reference 1, yes, it's an interview, but it's a straightforward news article and the content is in the Tribune's voice, not Nance's (to wit: "Nance, 55, is an intelligence and terrorism expert....")  Thus, I would say that reference is okay by my lights.  Reference 2 is more questionable, but as it is simply cited for the proposition that he published a book in 2016, again, for me, this is not a problem, per WP:SELFPUB.  Reference 3 is essentially the same; simply cited to reflect that the book was published.  I'm okay with that.  Reference 4 is an interesting one -- I'm not sure the general reliability of Iowa State extends to speaker bios, which are not always well vetted.  I need to think about that one some more!  Reference 5, a book review, is a classic secondary source and as far as I'm concerned, a good cite for Wikipedia (assuming the New York Journal of Books is a reliable source [I think so?]).  Reference 6 I agree with you 100%.  It needs to go.  Reference 7 I agree again, fine source, but it doesn't support the assertion.  Reference 8 I partially agree, doesn't support the sentence as written, though it does mention 35 years of service in the intelligence community.  Reference 9 again, I disagree.  Though from an interview, it is something stated by the publication, not the interviewee.  I have no problem there, assuming Salon is reliable (I would personally lean yes, but not sure on WP!).  Ditto reference 10.  Stated by the publication.  Ditto 11.  I tend to agree with you about 12; those are stated by Nance and do not meet the WP:SELFPUB standard to me.  I can't find easy access to 13 at the moment so I will skip it.  14 requires some disentangling; there are some claims in there that I think are okay and some not.  15 likewise; I think it's fine for the claim of a security consultant in Baghdad, but I se nothing about other locations in this particular source.  Similar for 16.  17 seems a bit misplaced I think it's fine for the assertion that "Mr Nance [] has served in Afghanistan and Iraq and is currently a lecturer on counter terrorism at Sydney's Macquarie University...." but not everything.  18 - again, citing to the article merely for the existence of the article is fine.  Ditto basically for 19.  And the last references are just fine -- they make no substantive claims other than "the book was published."  So I'd certainly think there's some improvement to be made!  As ever, just my opinions, and I would be chuffed were anyone else to make their thoughts known.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. And thanks for taking the time to read the references as I did. The bottom line for me (and to come full circle) is that virtually everything biographical in the article was provided by Nance in one way or another. For instance, We don't know if he is an Arabic speaker, or what high school he went to, or if he graduated from college. We only know what he told an interviewer or wrote in his author / speaker bio. In fact, the only biographical detail in the article I've been able to corroborate is that he was a cryptologist in the USN and retired after 20 years of service. And as I noted in the redacted section of my first (above - reworded here), there is more than a bit of exaggeration and factual omission. As commentary only, one of the problems with intelligence community pundits is that their experience is extremely difficult to verify. And they know it. CarlitosCorazon 08:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)
 * I hear you. And in some cases I agree.  But if the New York Times/Wall Street Journal/BBC or some other source beyond reproach says "he speaks Arabic," then it's verifiable per Wikipedia standards, even if it's pretty obvious that it's a speaker bio kind of thing.  Even in an interview, statements in the voice of the publication are authoritative to me.  We rely on their reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, and it's possible they have other sources.  So, "Mr. Nance speaks Arabic" strikes me as very different from "Mr. Nance says he speaks Arabic."  As I said, I think the Iowa State bio is rather a different animal.  And again, WP:SELFPUB lets us use statements by the subject for some things.  So, I feel your frustration, but I think you're using just slightly too narrow a filter for verifiability. Then again, as ever, that's just the way I see it.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. So, when I find the time, I will delete the references that we agree are faulted (from my list: 4,6,7,12) and "disentangle" the ones that are "entangled" (8,14,15,16,17). I may even add some "new" material. CarlitosCorazon 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)


 * As far as I'm concerned, go for it! I certainly reserve the right to quibble, but change is good.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I went to fix this page today per our discussion above, but editing has been locked down. I do not intend to fill out an "edit request" for such an insignificant subject / article. When the edit lock out expires, I will try again. FYI, the very foundations of Wiki are violated by such lock-outs. I know some have the power but believe it was used inappropriately in this case. It's not like it's Richard Nixon's page or someone of that ilk. And I still don't understand the aversion to facts vice hearsay.CarlitosCorazon 11:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)
 * If anyone is still "listening", I remain concerned with large chunks of the veracity of the sourcing of this article. Here are some examples:


 * BA Arabic Excelsior College - Excelsior College doesn't offer a BA in Arabic or any other foreign language. From their site: (https://www.excelsior.edu/programs/liberal-arts/liberal-arts-bachelor-degrees) No date has ever been cited for graduation, and for some time it was noted as Excelsior University.
 * Served in the U.S. Navy until 2001 - Here is a New York Time's article from early 2000 where he is employed by "Real World Rescue". (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/30/weekinreview/ideas-trends-tourists-stumble-into-the-line-of-fire.html) This employ was previously part of his Wiki biography but disappeared in 2014.
 * Executive director of TAPSTRI - He is the founder of TAPSTRI and apparently has just a single employee. (http://thetacticsofterror.org/) (... and Asymmetrics is not a word in English.)
 * A member of the board of directors for the International Spy Museum - He is a member of the "advisory board of directors". (https://www.spymuseum.org/about/leadership/board-of-directors/)
 * Nance created a training center called the Advanced Terrorism, Abduction and Hostage Survival School - I can find no evidence that any such center or school existed. If you "Google" the school name, you will get exactly one hit not directly related to Nance. And that reference refers to it as a "Course of Instruction." Older Nance references refer to it as a class within USN SERE School.
 * Here is a revealing exchange on a 2003 SpecOps forum.(http://www.lightfighter.net/topic/why-i-am-still-here-is-unknowable-here-is-some-of-my-gear?page=1) By his own admission, "Abu Buckwheat" (a racist slur to two U.S. minority groups) was Nance's handle.
 * So, we are now in a quandary. A source no less impressive than the New York Times demonstrates that Nance was not in the Navy in 2001. Yet, other acceptable WIKI sources (albeit based on Nance's statements) show that he was in the Navy in 2001. What to do? CarlitosCorazon 10:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've mentioned before, I am not fully confident in the Iowa State bio, which is the source of the Excelsior College claim. Just a reminder that we should be a little careful here about WP:OR, and I think the Navy timing is a good example of why.  It's entirely possible that someone screwed up with one of those dates.  I'd also say it's possible that Mr. Nance had been involved in the reserves or part-time or some such.  I simply don't know -- but we have a reliable source making the 2001 claim and another possibly offering evidence possibly inconsistent with that.  Again, I'd say we're getting close to WP:SYNTH.  While TAPSTRI may have a single employee, no one disputes the information and it was mentioned in a reliable source (also, asymmetrics IS a word in English!  You typed it yourself!).  As I've said before, there are certainly issues.  I am going to make a couple minor changes.  Thanks.  Dumuzid (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Wikipedia policy cannot be a defense for tacitly allowing shameless self-promotion to pass as factual sourcing. Let me know when I can have a crack at fixing this self-serving autobiography.CarlitosCorazon 18:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I have zero authority or influence over editing restrictions! As far as I can see, it's just 1RR right now.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is under "Extended Confirmed Protection", which is apparently sufficient to block me from editing it.CarlitosCorazon 09:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia policy cannot be a defense for tacitly allowing shameless self-promotion to pass as factual sourcing.
 * You've got that 100% wrong. Wikipedia is not a platform for passing judgment on how people promote themselves. That way lies madness, an eternal maelstrom of fake-news bun fights, and this: Malcolm Nance: The Left's token military shill. If one chooses to firewall dysfunctional politics at the source (i.e. the sources), then the article can only be as good as the source materials. What else is possible? If a reputable organization with concerns about Nance were to invest in some real journalism (rather than kettle calling), then this article would soon reflect those views. I agree that by the normal standards of people with this degree of visibility, Nance's bona fides are indeed sketchy and impossible to verify directly (that's how I wound up here, on the talk page, after viewing Nance on MSNBC). But this is clearly not our problem, as the discussion above establishes (having now combed out the worst of the circular citations), and wishing Wikipedia were something else isn't going to improve matters. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your well thought-out and written reply. You've changed my mind, which is not easy to do. I am now convinced that Wiki's sourcing policies, that both engender and repeat "fake news", whether from "reputable sources" or not, are at the heart of the problem. I have read multiple Wiki "biographies of living persons" that are wholly unsourced and ostensibly written by the subject. (Most are of local politicians.) I'm sorry to say that this has soured me on Wikipedia, as it appears to be on a path toward the intellectual veracity of Facebook. It saddens me. CarlitosCorazon 09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC) CarlitosCorazon 09:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)


 * I knew Nance in 1981-82. He was in the Arabic course at the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California during the same time I was in the Russian course. Both of us were Navy. I have not seen him since 1982, when he graduated from what was called Phase 2 at Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, Texas. I don't know the exact date he joined the Navy but we know he did a 20 year career him being in the Navy in 2001 is certainly plausible, even highly probable. 214.3.138.230 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Argument with Glenn Greenwald encyclopedic?
I don’t know the subject,or the source of controversy regarding Jill Stein. But I do know that when I come to read a wiki article it is jarring to see some kind of personal dispute playing out in the article, in this case with folks calling each other liars. Is this material to Nance’s wiki entry? If so it’s importance should be explained and justified. Jennpublic (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m an inclusionist, but I agree, this should probably be trimmed. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
Nance has apparently taken up arms in Ukraine. Are there any reliable sources on this yet? Yellowmellow45 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * here is a link to an embedded MSNBC interview with Nace while in Ukraine.
 * https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1516194469967659009?s=20&t=Qk9jr1GaPhgNqpeV6KgzlA maybe someone can find a link to the interview.
 * 67.240.235.7 (talk) 67.240.235.7 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Now also in the Washington Post: . --Amble (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Official website???
The link at the end of the article to Nance's "Official website" just goes to some web hosting company website.

Does there still exist an official website for Malcolm Nance? 2601:200:C082:2EA0:FC93:AEEF:D2D1:88B0 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

James Bond's SPECTRE - seriously?
As I started reading the article about Malcom Nance, I couldn't help but feel the first sentence was familiar: " . . .is an American author, media pundit, and special executive for counterintelligence, terrorism, revenge, and extortion." So I went to another Wikipedia article (entitled "SPECTRE") on the fictitious orgnaization that was James Bond's nemesis - SPECTRE. Here is a quote from it:

"SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) is a fictional organisation featured in the James Bond novels by Ian Fleming, as well as the films and video games based on those novels. Led by criminal mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the international organisation first formally appeared in the novel Thunderball (1961) and in the film Dr. No (1962)."

I don't think Mr. Nance specializes in terrorism, revenge and extortion. I suggest that the original author (or someone else) rewrite this sentence to give it a more appropriate meaning. TikiGod1950 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * , it was likely vandalism. I've reverted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

“Stolen Valor” and fraudster
Malcom has been named as someone who has caused chaos in the Ukranian war effort in a recent New York Times article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/25/world/europe/volunteers-us-ukraine-lies.html

The article mentions that the foreign legion of Ukraine “continue to feature individuals widely seen as unfit to perform their duties.’” before naming him. It goes into detail about how much chaos he caused through producing inaccurate intelligence reports as well as accusing legion official Emese Abigail Fayk of being a russian spy without any evidence.

This is contrasted with a fund raising campaign Malcom runs with another Ukranian volunteer who had lied about being a Marine veteran who it turned out has no military experience and worked as a waiter at a stake house.

the NYTimes article also called out his associates James Vasquez and the dubious charity Ripley’s Heroes. Vasquez had lied about his rank and combat deployments in Iraq when he actually left the military with a rank of private and no deployments and the article says the the Ripley Heroes was diverting funds to pay for private business ventures.

Basically, Malcom Nance is an incompetent fraudster taking advantage of the chaos in Ukraine.Friedbyrd (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Friedbyrd (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's some further sources casting doubts on his background & qualifications.
 * MSNBC Does Not Merely Permit Fabrications Against Democratic Party Critics. It Encourages And Rewards Them: https://theintercept.com/2018/07/08/msnbc-does-not-merely-permit-fabrications-against-democratic-party-critics-it-encourages-and-rewards-them/
 * In The Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast As Putin Plots: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/
 * Opinion: A Matter of Honor and the Fiction of Malcolm Nance: https://sofrep.com/news/a-matter-of-honor-the-fiction-of-malcolm-nance/
 * John Kiriakou Info-Warrior Malcolm Nance: https://consortiumnews.com/2022/05/10/john-kiriakou-info-warrior-malcolm-nance/
 * MSNBC Contributor Deletes Tweet Calling for ISIS Bombing of Trump Property: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/msnbc-contributor-deletes-tweet-calling-isis-bombing-trump-property/ 23.233.157.14 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest everyone to also read this threat: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraineforeignlegion/comments/1c722i0/malcolm_nance/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
 * My first-hand experience of Nance in the international legion absolutely corroborates what the redditers are writing there. 188.95.247.202 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)