Talk:Malcolm Nance

Controversies

(Redacted)

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 NorthBySouthBaranof as fixing violation of WP:BLP. Sagecandor (talk) 00:19, 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 (Redacted). 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 [1]. 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)

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? — 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 Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Malcolm_Nance. Sagecandor (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon: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 [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Greenwalds call out of fake news

This article [3] 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 NorthBySouthBaranof 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)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:I took your suggestion and added one sentence, how does this [4] look ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this edit by DHeyward [5]. 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 [6]. 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, [7]. 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)

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 [8] by admin CambridgeBayWeather.

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)