Talk:Malcolm Nance/Archive 1

United States Navy SEALs
Was he a United States Navy SEAL? Badagnani (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.219.131 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

 * Move to Malcolm Nance. Actual name used in opinion columns written by him as well as media reports about him. Badagnani (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elvey (t•c) 06:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Istanbul is not in Greece, people. Some Democrat needs to make this change in the interest of accuracy. (Wikipedia is Liberalpedia, so moderates like me cannot edit Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malcolm Nance. 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 http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20071108/NEWS/711080317/Ex-Navy-interrogator-Ban-waterboarding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040821123328/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F04%2Fwirq04.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F04%2Fwirq04.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F04%2Fixnewstop.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
This paragraph has been removed on couple of occasions. Wikipedia suppose to be a fact resource? The controversy no matter if someone against it due to biased political judgment or political correctness it should remain due to freedom of speech and as long as there are credible reference and sources it shall remain intact. The United States of America people needs to wake up and stop being biased. Why does it seem I am the only one that cares about freedom of speech? Respect is a two way street. Grow up! AttentiontoDetails (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has been removed from the article and from this talk page because it is false and defamatory. Claiming that Nance called for a terrorist attack based upon a poorly-worded tweet taken entirely out of context is neither fair to the article subject nor supported by a consensus of reliable sources. The material has no place in this biography. "Freedom of speech" has no role here; Wikipedia is not about "freedom of speech," it's about a collaborative project to write an Internet encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * meh Arkon (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal by as fixing violation of WP:BLP. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Three overlapping lists
The superheroic duo Pow R. Point and Bro Sure just called. They want that giant box of glazed-over donuts back.

Malcolm Wrightson Nance ... is a retired United States Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer in naval cryptology and author, scholar, and media commentator on international terrorism, intelligence, insurgency and torture.

Nance is an expert in the history, personalities, and organization of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL); jihadi radicalization, Islamic extremism in Middle East, Southwest Asian and African terror groups, as well as counterinsurgency and asymmetric warfare.

He speaks Arabic and is active in the field of national security policy particularly in anti- and counter-terrorism intelligence, terrorist strategy and tactics, torture and counter-ideology in combating Islamic extremism.

Lastly, is being a petty officer "in" a discipline even a real thing? &mdash; MaxEnt 18:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, can be easily fixed by breaking up the sentences. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BLPN board
Please see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Sagecandor (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove this notification from this talk page about this WP:BLP issue discussion ongoing at WP:BLPN. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Any removals of anything that actually belongs here was done in the attempt to fix your total bungling of this talk page. I've commented on BLPN already (as you know), and have asked other editors to help repair your damage on AN/I.  Arkon (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What "damage"? You have failed to explain any specific so-called "damage". That is ludicrous. Sagecandor (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Such damage. Wailing and gnashing of teeth!  Great gods of Wikipedia, save us! Dumuzid (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sagecandor (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This damage. Arkon (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Posts were archived by a bot at . Sagecandor (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

 * 1) Remove "Selected journalism and news articles" and replace it with the bolded "Selected journal articles" that wound up underneath.
 * 2) Get rid of the bolding on . Tweets aren't bolded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.162.37 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Has been changed to Selected bibliography. 2) Removed from article, per WP:BLPN. Sagecandor (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a note: No such consensus exists (yet) at BLPN for removal of material.  Arkon (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Per WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and WP:BURDEN, no such consensus exists at WP:BLPN, for adding such material. Sagecandor (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Never said it did of course. I need to revert your previous edit however as you removed other comments of mine.  Arkon (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop. The problem all started with this vandalism . Sagecandor (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not vandalism, though your removal of other's comments sure could look that way. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was definitely vandalism. It removed notice to the WP:BLPN noticeboard about WP:BLP violations. Sagecandor (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Page now subject to Arbitration Enforcement discretionary sanctions
This WP:BLP page on the topic of American Politics is now subject to Arbitration Enforcement discretionary sanctions, per this edit to the top of the page by admin.

Do not remove this notice from the top of this talk page.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Media Personality"?
From a quick search, I would describe this person as primarily a Media Personality; equivalent to Eric Garland (or the opposite of Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter). He appears to be notable mainly for posting in large volumes on Twitter, and occasionally having articles elsewhere, such as The Guardian. The article doesn't reflect this at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a secondary source that makes that claim? Sagecandor (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one editing this article, you're welcome to do so. I'm merely noting his public presence on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, WP:BURDEN. Sagecandor (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Greenwalds call out of fake news
This article by the Intercept's calls out the fake news Nance retweeted and pronounced as true. This biography continues to list the fake news that the Podesta email's released by Wikileaks continued forgeries. Greenwald and The Intercept are left wing outlets and their criticism here is accurate and notable. From the article: Jeff Greenwald: Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes:.... Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done. --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact Nance's claims about the e-mails have not been corroborated and have been criticized is relevant to this article; we probably ought to add a couple sentences (one sentence and a quote?) to the "Guest analyst" section where it's already discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with that this could maybe be one sentence per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, unless discussed in-depth by other secondary sources, as well. If not, then nope. Sagecandor (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point. It's fully-protected though. --DHeyward (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I took your suggestion and added one sentence, how does this look ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this edit by DHeyward. We should avoid use of word "fraud", per policy WP:BLPCRIME. I have instead added a full quote, that mentions Nance directly, by name, in the quote, at. To use the word "fraud", absent other sources saying the same, is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and violation of WP:BLPCRIME. And I know the user agrees with me about the policy of WP:BLPCRIME per their actions at "rm a section simply not allowed by BLPCRIME". Sagecandor (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User has violated 1RR and added "fraud" back into the page a 2nd time, . This needs to be removed from the page per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Sagecandor (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a 1RR violation. Why are you even commenting and taking over a discussion I started? Why are you interjecting yourself, again, after being asked not to? There is consensus to add information from The Intercept column that called out Nance's criticism of wikileaks. Choosing a quote that attempts to make it look like Greenwald is agreeing with Nance is nonsensical. I don't particularly care for quotes, but since you added them, they should be the ones relevant to Nance. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To add the word "fraud" is both WP:UNDUE WEIGHT from one (1) source, and a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Sagecandor (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: Is it acceptable to accuse a WP:BLP of "fraud" based on one (1) source? Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another article regarding that bit of fake news. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Same source, same author. Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept. No other sources use word "fraud". Therefore, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Sagecandor (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal and edit summary explaining it by . Sagecandor (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I am sure that you will agree to remove all of the negative comments about Trump made by the single commentator Malcolm Nance? It's pretty obvious that a pulitzer prize winning journalist that is an expert on Wikileaks calling out Nance as a fraud and perveyor of fake news regarding wikileaks is notable. Bob Woodward strongly objects to your characterization that a journalists opinion and investigation, covered over multiple stories is not adequate. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * DHeyward, I'm not sure which "negative comments about Trump" you mean? On President Trump's Wikipedia article?  Here?  I don't quite understand.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you miss "Trump: The Kremlin candidate?" How about any number of accusations including the recent absurd comparison to Benedict Arnold?  But it's  the logie, not the coverage.  Here we have a talking head with lots of Wikipedia coverage (Nance) while Pulitzer prize winners are not notable enough to have their opinion that he's a fraud be stated.  Nance's opinion on Wikileaks is UNDUE if the expert on Wikileaks, Greenwald, isn't covered.  Greenwald assesses Nance on his knowledge of Wikileaks and it's notable.  Much more notable than anything Nance has said about Trump or Wikileaks.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realize that "Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?" is not, in fact, an assertion made by Mr. Nance? I can find no assertions on Wikipedia about the president which are cited to Mr. Nance (though admittedly, it has not been an exhaustive search).  Is the Benedict Arnold accusation somewhere on Wikipedia?  I would almost certainly agree that it does not belong.  I would also agree that Mr. Nance's opinion on Wikileaks is undue.  But I confess, it sounds like you are more bothered by Mr. Nance himself than his coverage on Wikipedia.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Newsbusters and The Blaze
. Both fail WP:BLP as poor sources for a BLP.

Polemic and fail WP:NPOV.

Sourced info was also removed.

The "Guest analyst" sections should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing said about the living person in unreliable poor sources that fail WP:BLP.

Edit should be undone and source removed. Sagecandor (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: Are "Newsbusters" and "The Blaze" acceptable sources for negative material about this WP:BLP ? Sagecandor (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think so, but that's probably predictable. I checked for both at WP:RSN and found discussion, but no obvious consensus.  That being said, since we are talking about BLP, I'd say we should be looking for a little more.  I am fine with The Intercept, but I'd be careful with these two.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Newsbusters doesn't strike me as RS. I think a view should be sought at RSN -- with the material in question removed until/unless there's a consensus there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with and . There appears to be an attempt to smear this WP:BLP with any and all possible negative information from fringe right-wing unreliable sources, while at the same time removing sourced information. Can the edit be undone? Sagecandor (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the article is better off without the "Guest Analyst" section entirely; does that sound like a plan? Dumuzid (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, note the above section where I discussed expanding this. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It should stay OUT until consensus, not the other way around. Per WP:BURDEN. Please undo yourself . Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will note that with BLP, the rule is generally out until consensus. I think both for that reason and just general quality and style, the article is better without that section.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a guideline saying that those sources aren't reliable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. They've been at RSN before. There is no consensus supporting their reliability. Sagecandor (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. . Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN and WP:RS and and, above. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no point discussing this with you here. Is there an admin board you'd like to discuss this on? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Already reported it to WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, after suggestion to do so by and, above. Sagecandor (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical Error
Possibly nitpicking, but I sense there's a letter missing from the following fragment: In 2014, he became the executive director of the Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies (TAPSTRI), at Hudson, New York-based think tank.

HasanDiwan (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be "a" Hudson-based, which is current wording, is fine. Sagecandor (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

where is the mention of his his extremely controversial Tweet?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/19/malcolm-nance-msnbc-terrorism-analyst-nominates-tr/

Very puzzling...68.117.92.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I recall the rioting and breakdown of society that accompanied said tweet. Puzzling indeed. Dumuzid (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * you recall what? if you recall anything, where is it in the article?68.117.92.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I recall the great swell of the people, speaking in unison, declaring "THIS TWEET IS CONTROVERSIAL." Now if only there were some way to (in accordance with some reasonable set of policies) edit the article to include information that can be found in reliable sources.  It's a pity, really.  Dumuzid (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You recall a great swell of people pointing out the notability of this incidence yet decided to ignore the fact it wasn't actually included in the article?68.117.92.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I made no such decision! Ignoring that fact was totally inadvertent for my part.  I am merely neglectful, I am not actively malicious.  But what is to be done?  There's no remedy that I can see.  Alas and alack, I fear the world may soon forget the hue and cry which attended 'the tweet that ended western civilization.'


 * Sounding more troll than editor. Ignored.68.117.92.91 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I think I'm about 50/50 here, and there's a valid point or two in the mix. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP is a banned user and I have blocked him. See this block log from a previous IP for comparison. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Amateur hour
The TAPSTRI web site displays its own formal title in the text masthead as: In the giant carousel graphic, the title is displayed as: In this article, the name is written as:
 * The Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics & Radical Ideology
 * Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics & Radical Ideologies.
 * Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies.

What a sad web site with all the fingerprints of a highly distracted one-man band who once hired a graphics artist. But we should cite it correctly—supposing we can figure out what that is—nevertheless. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)