Talk:Andy McNab

Peckham

Could of sworn and by his own admission in a book that Andy grew up in Catford NOT Peckham. Its quite funny reading about his sojourn in schools as I myself managed to get expelled and permanently excluded from every Bromley senior school and a couple junior schools as well, Andy went on to become a soldier... I went on to become the source material for Trevor out of Made in Britain, us south Londoner's certainly know how to shake the world one way or the other.

92.31.49.54 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

?

"...is quite likely that the SAS squad inflicted no more than several casualties..."

_Several_? How many?

Strange choice of words

Agree with previous comment.

"no more than several casualties, if any at all" is ambiguous at the very least.

Actually, it is poor writing. Strike "if any at all". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.81.7 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the clandestine nature of the subject, it might be impossible to cite published references, but still... :)

Andy McNab went to my school 13/11/06

I see one major flaw in the critick

Quote:

"Due to the extremely sensitive nature of his work with the SAS, Andy McNab is the only author who has to submit his fiction to the British Ministry of Defense for review, and he is still wanted by a number of the world's terrorist organizations. He is therefore forbidden to reveal either his face or his current location. These last claims appear difficult to believe. Numerous other former SAS members, including Chris Ryan, Johnny "Two Combs" Howard and Shaun Clarke have also published fiction, with Ryan having also participated in the Bravo Two Zero patrol. Chris Ryan, and the former US Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko, are public figures with media careers, Ryan regularly appearing on television, most notably utilising his skills on one of Derren Brown's psychic stunt shows."

This part of the article says that Chris Ryan are a public figure, but if you click on the link [[1]] and read his Wikipedia entry it states: "It should be noted that Chris Ryan is a pseudonym."

I rest my case --Reddox 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. I wrote the quoted text, and assuming that's right I'll concede that. You'll note that Ryan and the others don't put such claims on their bios. Myself, I'd love to see some verification on his works being vetted by intelligence, or that he was the most decorated serving soldier at any time.

It seems pretty clear that he's trying to cultivate a mystique.

Well are you going to edit the text I pointed out? --Reddox 02:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

chris ryan is not a pseudonym, he shows his real face all the time on tv.

Read above and on Chris Ryan's wikipedia page, it says it IS a pseudonym, but yes differently he is openly public and his real name is clearly published. Also, apparently he has just gotten married to a work colleague of my sister... I can't help thinking that it's some dodgy bloke from Hereford saying that he is McNab... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.244.121 (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he does, and I'm fairly sure McNab once appeared as a Newsnight guest (subject the role of disabled men/women in the forces). I think the business of never showing your face etc. is overdone; retired SAS blokes crop up on tv all the time. "he is still wanted by a number of the world's terrorist organizations. He is therefore forbidden to reveal either his face or his current location." I'm not sure about that - as a writer doesn't he do book signings? Hakluyt bean 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

he does do book signings but apparently only employees of the book store are allowed to go and its usually held in the store room or below where the public cannot see him (i cite a contestant from last season of countdown on ch4 in the uk as my source for that, he worked in a bookstore where mcnab did a signing, not the best of sources i know but its the best i can do) user:aragami

Andy McNab did a signing at Ottakers (as was) in Milton Keynes a couple of years ago. I didn't go but there was no idication on the advertising posters that it was for employees only.

McNabs career as an author is more successful than Cris Ryans, that could be because he was basically the first to release a book after the Gulf War 1, or it could indeed be that he has better advice and a better business manager etc. If he has good advisors behind him, then maintaining that element of mystique certainly will do his career no harm. With regards to the book signings, I'm reminded of a claim that a book signing was cut short because his security team found an "IED" (Improvised Explosive Device) in a book in a store where he was due to appear. Again this is probbably bollocks, but it does the "Andy McNab" brand no harm. Finally, McNab writes in detail about his missions in 14 Det. in Northern Ireland "during the troubles" and I guess we can forgive the guy the idea that the IRA might want revenge. Having said all that though, I'm a total Cris Ryan fan, and throughly enjoyed "Hunting Cris Ryan". Tommo148

I was in the Blind Beggar pub on the Whitechapel Road today and, above their front fireplace, they have some insignia (RGJ and SAS) and a small plaque dedicated to the staff and patrons who were there on a particular night in 2006. All of these are from Andy McNab (says so right on the plaque) so he is certainly willing to show his face and have people know his identity in run down East End pubs. colchar (talk) 0:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.234.98 (talk)

Many other authors have to send their books to the MoD before publification. Also he was a member of the 14 intelligence company and every body that was in that unit must protect their identity to this day. Also Andy McNab isn't his real name it is only the name he uses for his books and public work so there are many people who know him but very few know him as Andy McNab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlcodcfc (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

McNab's use of a pseudonym for 'security reasons'

Michael Asher in "The Real Bravo Two Zero" claims that the passenger in a taxi hijacked by McNab knew McNab's real name................... if you ever have any idea of his real name you never release it, however right or wrong you may be, MCNAB is a pseudonym for a reason. he has done wonders for the forces and this should be respected, Thanyou Johnny

Well, I don't know about the immediately above, but the reason some SAS authors use pseudonyms is marketing. Peter Ratcliffe for example doesn't. Hakluyt bean 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

'MacNab's' former SAS boss, Peter Ratcliffe not only uses his own real name, but also debunks the myth that Steven Mitchell requires a pseudonym for ‘security reasons’(Asher, M, 2003, "The Real Bravo Two Zero", page 247). There are no sources independent of 'McNab' to support his claim of 'security reasons', nor many of his other claims listed as fact in this article. This article should only contain reliable, sourced information, not fan dedications to an adventure novelist discredited by his own boss.Mr Pillows (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to 86.93.225.174's subversive edit of this section: Please don't vandalise this article. McNab's real first name, 'Steven', is referenced from a widely available, legally published book source; Asher, Michael (2003). The Real Bravo Two Zero. England: Cassell. p. 139. ISBN 0304365548., where McNab's statement of security reasons are also refuted by his former boss, Peter Ratcliffe. Changing a suitably referenced statement to a poorly, or non-referenced conjectional belief amounts to vandalism. Your further subversive edit of my statement above did not specify that you had modified someone else's work (namely mine!) and was unsigned by yourself. I can assume from your edits that you are probably about 16 years of age, so I don't hold it against you, but understand that wikipedia is about referencable information, not a fansite for your 'army' hero.Mr Pillows (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless - and until - 'McNab' debunks it himself I consider it a violation of his privacy. So I disagree. Some use pseudonyms for marketing, some don't use pseudonyms at all. Which ever suits them, it should be respected! What are you? The Truth Police?? What matters on Wiki is that people get information - it's not relevant if someone is called A, B or Chopstick. Thank you for not holding it against me, however, I do hold the patronising remark 'you are probably about 16 yrs of age' against you though. 86.93.225.174 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not write ‘The Real Bravo Two Zero’ (ISBN 0304365548), I did not publish it and nor did I sell any of the many thousands of copies that have been sold. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". If 'McNab' wanted privacy, he probably wouldn't have written some 20 books (including "the highest selling war book of all time"), set up his own website which notes himself as "the British Army's most highly decorated serving soldier", worked for The Sun newspaper as a celebrity reporter, nor appeared on Big Brother. These are not the typical actions of one seeking privacy - and celebrities who continue to use thier fame for personal gain forfeit such rights.Mr Pillows (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

= = = If McNab did NOT want privacy concerning his name, he would use it openly. You will not find his name anywhere but in places were smart asses feel they do not have to respect his wish to only use his pseudonym in public. There is no logic in your statement that the fact that he does the public things you mention above, rules out the fact that he wants to be known as “Andy McNab”. In all of his productions, he shares with the public what he wants to share (and only what is ‘allowed’ by the MOD). Being a public figure (whether movie/tv stars, sportsmen, politicians etc) does not exclude a desire to keep parts of ones personal life private. They do not always (often not) get it (described so nicely in your article as “right to freedom of expression, enjoyed by the press and media”) - but that doesn’t mean it is fair! Just because you CAN release private information, doesn’t mean you have to, and it shows, imho, a lack of integrity.

The fact that you did not write/publish/sell ‘The Real B20’ is not really relevant: Verifiability is all well.. .can you give me one source that states that M.Ashers book, however called ‘the Real..’ gives 100% (verifiably true) facts? (If you HAD written the book, I’d still want that source – call me skeptic). Because it was published and sold (thanks to the popularity of McNabs and Ryans accounts!) – it does not mean it is (all) true!! I can give you endless lists of book titles that were published and sold (well) but are disputable!

I have no idea why you feel such a strong need to go beyond McNabs wishes – but I resent it. And I’ve spent enough energy on this - so you be one of those smart asses mentioned above if you can’t help yourself. I’m done with it.206.122.102.52 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of all the celebrities in the world, it is famous autobiographers who most give up their right to privacy. Peer review and scrutiny is standard practice for all academic work, and when an autobiographer makes themself the subject of such a work, privacy is the price they knowingly pay. Wikipedia is not about your wishes, my wishes or even Mr Mitchell's wishes, it's about verifiable information. The fact that Andy McNab's real first name is 'Steven' is not only verifiable in published literature, but also known by yourself to be true - as demonstrated by your misguided efforts to delete it. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.Mr Pillows (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

=== You are so full of assumptions, which is kind of odd for someone who thinks 'verifiability' is the key. Be happy with your Wiki-ing, hope it won't bite you in the tail someday... 206.122.102.52 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The decision to withhold information of any nature, be it operational information or personal details, is a choice left up to the individual discretion of each former or current member of the SAS. You are not bound to absolute secrecy in any matters outside of specifically classified military information. However, some current and former personnel choose to be cautious with their details because it can present a security risk to themselves and their families. I'm not a fan of McNab's work, but this is a valid concern and it is indeed his right to exercise caution if he so desires. I say this not to contribute to the article, because I know "it's an encyclopaedia, not a fan page" and someone will add it anyway, but simply to present some reality to some of the smug, self-satisfied internet editors I see spewing their arrogant bollocks on this talk page. 94.169.193.241 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding McNab's real full name to this article

I am giving notice that I intend to add McNab's real full name to this article because it is clearly important for any article about a real person. This has been attempted multiple times before, but has been removed each time by misguided editors. I am aware that this is going to cause an uproar from 'McNab' devoteees, however the edit is verifiable, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do for the sake of encyclopedic content: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for McNab and additionally, Wikipedia is not censored.

Not that it is required, but below is a brief justification for those who disagree that Wikipedia should inform readers about the truth behind their 'war hero'. I believe it covers all of the concerns that have so far been raised on this talk page.

Legality

• the British Official Secrets Act 1989 does not specify any legal restrictions on naming current nor ex-SAS personell.
• 'McNab' himself has stated "It's not a rule, it's common sense".
• The real name of 'McNab' was published by the British Government themselves In The London Gazette in 1998 after he had left the SAS, and is still available online from the original British Government source, as is a previous publication of his name in a 1980 edition.

Privacy

• Peer review and scrutiny is standard practice for all academic work, and when an autobiographer makes themself the subject of such a work, privacy is the price they knowingly pay. For the purpose of making a profit from authoring books, 'McNab' has made himself the subject of three autobiographies; Bravo Two Zero (1993), Immediate Action (1995) and Seven Troop (2008).
• When publishing the novel Bravo Two Zero, 'McNab' demonstrated no consideration for the privacy of Vincent Phillips, Steven Lane and Bob Consiglio, all of whom he named, whilst not naming himself.
• The verifiability of 'McNab's' actual name, is solely due to his own actions in promoting himself as a Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal recipient. If 'McNab' really cared about the privacy of his real name, he would not have included these distinguishing titles in his pseudonym.

Security

• 'McNab' himself admits that the pseudonym has commercial advantage, and is now a brand: "I've sold beer, watches".
• For an act to be considered 'retributive' (as opposed to 'random') it must be committed with some knowledge of the believed transgression. The threat of a retributional reponse, statistically increases by the number of persons aware of the action in question. As a trained security expert, 'McNab' is well aware of this threat relationship, and so his continual advertisement of his prior exploits (particularly in regards to Norhern Ireland) in both novels and the media indicates that he does not actually have any of the security fears that he so frequently cites.
• 'McNab' regularly attends book signings and is available for motivational public speaking, both actions contradicting any serious claim for security, as has been cited (Note: one of the supplied references is an promotional news release selling tickets to an event at which 'McNab" is going to appear - this is not the behaviour of someone with genuine security fears).
• 'McNab's' former boss, ex-SAS Regimental Sergeant Major and fellow Gulf War veteran, Peter Ratcliffe has scorned 'McNab's' use of a pseudonym, stating McNab is not "serving in the regiment any longer. So what possible reason could [he] have for concealing [his] true identity?".
• 'McNab's' claims of genuine security fears are not verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. The only source is 'McNab's' personal website, personal claims in media interviews and dedicated fan-sites which often act as puppets because of the psychological observation that "fans bask in the reflected glory of the target".

Verifiability

• 'McNab' has always used the initials 'DCM' as part of his title when authoring books. 'DCM' refers to the 'Distinguished Conduct Medal' 'McNab' won during Operation Granby, Gulf War, 1991. Only 6 DCMs were awarded in this operation; the names of each recipient publically appearing in the London Gazette. Only one of the recipicients was a former Green Jacket as 'McNab' has repeatedly said he was. That soldier issues/55340/supplements/13620 "Honours and Awards" Supplement to The London Gazette of Monday, 14th December 1998. Number 55340, published: December 14 1998. Page 13620]</ref>.
• 'McNab' claims on his website to be the British Army's most highly decorated soldier when he retired in 1993, holding both the DCM and the Military Medal. A cross check of the London Gazette shows that only one soldier held both these medals in 1993. Details of the soldier's MM also reveal that it was won in Northern Ireland in 1979, as 'McNab' has repeatedly said his was. That soldier is Steven Billy Mitchell.
• Michael Asher states on page 139 of his book The Real Bravo Two Zero (2003) that McNab's real name is .

Mr Pillows (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of the above sources, I'd suggest that the fact his first name is reliably sourced. The rest of his name looks like original research. What you need is a reliable source explicitly stating the fact, not your inference from other sources. — Matt Crypto 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think we have different understandings of original research. During my studies, original research refered to collecting one's own data - and this is strictly forbidden in wikipedia articles. What I have posted above is a literature review of available publications, which is not original research because the sources are The London Gazette and Bravo Two Zero (1993). Even if you are correct, it would still be legitimate to state in the article: "According to McNab, he served with the Royal Green Jackets and won a DCM in 1991. According to the London Gazette, the only soldier to win a DCM in 1991 from the Green Jackets was ", but doing so would be a needlessly round-about way of saying what has already been said. I think the main complaint from editors in the past has not been the verifiability, but the 'security reasons' excuse which is addressed above. - Mr Pillows (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely that "security reasons" are not really Wikipedia's primary concern, and actually a complete non-issue if his name has already been published in a reliable third party source. I do think, though, that what you are suggesting is synthesis of published material. WP:SYNTH advises, "do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.". — Matt Crypto 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What about: "According to McNab, he served with the Royal Green Jackets and won a DCM in 1991. According to the London Gazette, the only soldier to win a DCM in 1991 from the Green Jackets was "? - Mr Pillows (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd be against it, it seems a bit like trying to keep to the letter of WP:SYNTH while avoiding the spirit of the policy. I feel if no reliable source has explicity named McNab, we shouldn't really do so either. — Matt Crypto 10:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see it more as keeping with the spirit of wikipedia, and also keeping to the letter of the WP:SYNTH - that's two wins! This is a far more valuable stance to take than insisting a policy has more intent than it actually states. What do you think? - Mr Pillows (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there does not seem to be a single source - let alone a reputable one - that has reached the same conclusion as you means that all of your efforts are inadmissable original research. Nick Cooper (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Gazette is the official paper of record for the government, and it's the only person who matches - twice it must be noted - effectively and officially corroborates what he's saying. Anyone refusing to accept the reality of that is merely doing their best to promote wikipedia's reputation as a bunch of navel gazing idiots. Seriously lads, grow up aye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.236.217 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 June 2009

It is not Wikipedia's place to present the results of private individual's speculations. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another proof of 'McNab's' real name: Awarded the Military Medal for Bravery: . - Funny enough, it matches with 'McNab' being newly promoted Lance Corporal in 1979 and being a part of the Green Jackets. His name is confirmed on two different documents. If it isn't his real name , he's doing a good job protecting it. Anyway, there are other ways of staying out public life and being anonymous, than being a famous author and appearing in countless of interviews (though with a hidden face). -- Kirjapan (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wiki.Answers.com: "McNab also claimed to be the British Army's most highly decorated soldier when he retired in 1993, holding both the DCM and the Military Medal. A cross check of the London Gazette shows that only one soldier held both these medals in 1993. Details of MM also reveal that it was won in Northern Ireland in 1979, as McNab's was." - Sources mentioned: [2] and [3]. -- Kirjapan (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But without a reliable source making the same observation, it's still a breach of WP:SYNTH. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While Nick is certainly right as far as WP:SYNTH goes, 195.229.236.217 is spot on with "Anyone refusing to accept the reality of that is merely doing their best to promote wikipedia's reputation as a bunch of navel gazing idiots." Has anyone considered "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" in this case, because wikipedia is being used as a Talkbox by misguided McNab devotees concerning this information? The history of the article shows a consistant fabrication of legalities and security fears surrounding McNab's name, yet the man himself has admitted it's not true. I know, and understand that truth is not a goal of wikipedia, however I see no point hiding it for the sake of policy, whilst condoning previous edits which had blatent fabrications. The spirit of WP:SYNTH is to prevent opinionative, and likely false material that advances a position, not to dismiss easily verifiable facts such as this case. "Why isn't there an available source that makes the same McNab/Mitchell connection?": Because I'm the guy who turned the persistant rumours into verifiable facts, and I did it here, with the help of wikipedia... Mr Pillows (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Pillows, you say "security fears surrounding McNab's name, yet the man himself has admitted it's not true"." Can you give me where and when the man himself stated this? 86.93.225.174 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer you seek is already on this page, under the 'Legality' sub heading. Here it is again in extended form: Being anonymous can be an advantage. Not for him the slog of chat shows and book signings - his books fly out of the shops anyway. I thought the evasiveness had something to do with the Official Secrets Act, but not so: "It's not a rule, it's common sense.". And, in case you think Suzi Feay might have misquoted him, here is an interveiw where the words come out of his own, albeit shadowed, mouth: "It's just common sense, that's all it is. It's not cloak and dagger stuff, just common sense". Is that clear enough, or could it be somehow misconstrued? If you read my orginal 'Adding McNab's real full name to this article' post, you'll see all this legal discussion has been covered, as well as the riduculous, self-dismissing security claims/privacy concerns that some people are intent on flogging. Since my original post, a new British High Court ruling, which applies to Mitchell's right to privacy as an author of allegedly factual accounts of British Government activities, has been publicised - "Ruling in favour of the right of the press to report details in the public interest, [Mr Justice] Eady stated his decision was in part informed by "a growing trend towards openness and transparency in such matters"... ...A desire to remain anonymous is insufficient to be enforced by law". I'm afraid Mitchell's opinions, and that of his devoted, are not quite as respected as that of the High Court. As the history of the page shows, editors have been revealing McNab's 'rumoured' real name ever since the article began, only to have it removed in under the guise of WP:VERIFY. All that has changed now, and the only issue that's currently under a cloud is the WP:SYNTH issue and whether or not it needs application in this instance. Mr Pillows (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm, giving me the extended form. So it's 'common sense'. May I ask what you think McNab means with 'common sense'? I mean, it's 'common sense' not to walk a dangerous city area by yourself, unarmed. It's 'common sense' not to drink and drive, also not to jump off the Eiffel tower without parachute etc. But what does it mean for McNab? Since you seem to dismiss it so easily - you must have some idea? 86.93.225.174 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"But what does it mean for McNab?" - An often misunderstood phrase, common sense, by defintion, is any sense that is common to more than one person - not necessarily everyone, not necessarily the majority, but two or more people (ie a group of people). I have no idea what it means to Mitchell personally, nor what you actually mean by asking the question. The British High Court has ruled that in the case of those who report on the activities of government, "A desire to remain anonymous is insufficient to be enforced by law". What more should any law-abiding British citizen need to know? Finally, where I come from, arming yourself is not a common sense approach in order to "walk a dangerous city area by yourself". In my experience, avoiding the area, or walking in a group is more common than the rather worrying idea of arming one's self. I don't know where you're from, so I can't say it's not common sense to carry weapons where you live, but I feel sorry for anyone who lives in a society of such violence and fear. Thankfully in Britain, there are goverment campaigns to stop young people feeling the need to carry weapons and, not surprisingly, Mitchell is a noted supporter of these. As mentioned earlier, the issue here is WP:SYNTH, not Steven Mitchell's "desire to remain anonymous". Mr Pillows (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "I have no idea what it means to McNab personally, nor what you actually mean by asking the question."

If you have no idea, you would not know whether his security claim is valid, allthough that's perhaps exactly what he means with 'common sense'? And what I meant by asking is to see the answer I expected written by your own hand. Thank you.

Also - why do you use a pseudonym yourself? Why not use a proper name, like Bert or Lance or Fitzroy or something? If you are so eager to reveal other peoples name(s), why not give yours too? It seems only fair to me. 86.93.225.174 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"why do you use a pseudonym yourself?" It is not possible to edit Wikipedia without anonymously displaying your IP address or adopting a pseudonym (commonly called a user account). I doubt 86.93.225.174 is your real name, but this is not the issue. Unlike Steven Mitchell, neither you or I reach the Wikipedia notability threshold, so our real names aren't important. Additionally, Wikipedia doesn't allow primary research, each claim requiring verifiability. This ensures the credibility of the editor has no relevance, only the credibility of the reference material cited. I personally wouldn't trust a word I say, unless I backed it up with reliable sources, which is the whole reason why this discussion is actually about WP:SYNTH, and not Mitchell's claim to privacy (which has already been verifiably addressed by the British High Court, as well as the British government who published his name in the first place). If both the High Court and Government already have published opinions, then yours, mine and Mitchell's are probably a tad moot. Mr Pillows (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Brit government published 'his' name? That's what you assume and the whole SYNTH problem is that you can't link McNab to Mitchell. But besides that you avoid the real issues I addressed and that's what I thought you would do. Thank you. 86.93.225.174 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"...you can't link McNab to Mitchell." - Apparently I can, and already have (I take it you still haven't read my original post, where the link is made quite clear. Read it, it's fascinating stuff!). What are the real issues that you addressed, and I avoided? Mr Pillows (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansite?

Is it me or does this article seem as though it could've been lifted directly from a fansite? As it contains more 'weasel words' than references, this article is quite vapid. Probably a result of 'Brand McNab' no doubt. SlopingFlange (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it really needs a bit of a redo - it really reeks of Waltiness - if it hasn't been done by his PR reps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.65.166 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Read his bio on his own website. Portions of this wikipedia page have been lifted from there word for word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.234.98 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article lacks objectivity, and contains many statements without citation for example "When he left the SAS in 1993, he was the most highly decorated serving soldier in the British Army". Says who? 78.147.173.43 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)xhacker

I am really sorry...

I decided to add an image to the article, but it's made it completely messed up! I'm really sorry, all I wanted to do was help and I've ruined it. Please, somebody help me!

Dibship (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont panick, calm down. Everyone realises what you have done was done to help the article not harm it, your not in trouble or anything and everyone is glad of your picture. Its no major mess it will be alright in the end. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Truly Heroic"

The most highly decorated patrol since the Boer War, the truly heroic exploits of the Bravo Two Zero patrol have been recognised the world over...

Is this supposed to be facts? Sounds more like military propaganda.

It should definately be put another way. Also, many people the world over believe engaging is military actions is wrong. The statement should be neutral, or quote a specific source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.159.186 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fake?

How come there is nothing in this article about "Andy Mcnab" being labelled a fraud by his RSM, section members from B-20 and the author of the book; The Real Bravo Two Zero?

Because this is effectively a fansite which doesn't allow criticism of their 'hero', however truthful or provable. You'll soon get deleted if you try, but good luck anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.143.73 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

CPC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.18.207 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Military career - First paragraph clarification

Is it just me or is the second half of the first paragraph a bit confusing? It mentions someone named "McElvenna" without previously introducing or describing him, and it doesn't explain any sort of direct relationship with the content of the article. I can only assume that "McElvenna" was purportedly among the group of IRA terrorists that McNab's patrol encountered. I suppose that "their contact" as used in McNab's quote refers to the engagement between McNab's patrol and the IRA group, but I don't understand why his quote about the army's (British army) assumption is used unless it is meant to show why McNab believed he had killed for the first time after being presented evidence that showed his victim survived the attack.

I am guessing these few sentences are together intended to present McNab's claim of the first time he killed and to present evidence proving (?) otherwise. Unmotivate 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmotivate (talk • contribs)

McNab's "real name"

I see that this has been reinstated having been previously removed on 30 August by User:ACatharina, the source being given being a specific page in Michael Asher's 2003. However, it seems that only his first name from this source was used until the middle and surname were added by anon IP 24.137.38.138 the day before. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I'd intended to restore from the version that contained only his first name, but copied from the wrong version by mistake. — Matt Crypto 07:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Real..."

Shouldn't all this stuff be put in the Bravo Two Zero pages rather than the McNab pages?

Or at least the full article and have it reduced to a summary here, as it does waffle on a bit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.240.254 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 September 2009

His name has been on Wiki for a while and some general info on the subject (READ)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_gallantry_awards_for_Operation_Granby#Distinguished_Conduct_Medal 4th one down. Recognize it?

1. Even if you didn't know that was his name it's pretty damn obvious if you've read any of his Non-Fiction books.

So yeah, with the smallest amount of research it's incredibly easy to prove his real name is infact I also read a couple of blogs, one man claimed to have apparently found a picture of McNab and e-mailed his publishers and got this reply: “It is always good to know that people will comment when they see something that is not right. Fortunately in this case the gentleman pictured is not Andy McNab, nor does he look anything like him – so a potentially disastrous situation is actually quite amusing.” Turns out it was McNab's co-writer Robert Rigby.

The blogger carries on and then says this: "A contact in the intelligence community tells me that McNab’s real ID is well known ‘in the trade’ and his wishes to keep his head down are merely a great way to build his brand as an author. So there we’ll leave the real McNab"

So stop bickering about the fact he doesn't need it and he's hiding. By having a pseudonym he can build his trade as an author. He's not hiding behind it. He was in the fucking SAS. He's hard as fuck. And you're an idiot.

File:SasclothBadge.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SasclothBadge.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

His real name

The argument made earlier in this talk page [4] is pretty solid yet it seems a small group of editors keep on reverting any mention of his real name or linking of his real name to this article. He is even listed twice in List of former Special Air Service personnel under his real and fake name, which is patently absurd. I even found a source mentioning his real name [5] (ok we can ditch the middle name I guess) Why are some people so intent on hiding this fact and reverting/issuing warnings over it? It's pretty pathetic.

The only reason I first came to this article was to find the guys real name, which wasn't made immediately clear until I read the talk page and did some googling. Then when I tried to add his name to this article and to the Bravo Two Zero article and to link his real name to the Andy McNab page on the List of British gallantry awards for Operation Granby page I got shut down and after reverting that fact I get threatened with a ban for vandalising! So instead of invoking the wrath of those wrapped up in the bureaucracy of Wikipedia any further I'll just vent my spiel here about this madness and walk away, I hope some people can come to see some sort of sense.

(And for the record I have no opinions on the man, his books or TV adaptations and the reasons for using a pen-name and hiding his face on TV/Photos, I was just genuinely curious about his real name, something which I thought the Free Internet Encyclopaedia that anyone can Edit could help me with, apparently not. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.49.84 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've read all the previous discussions, you'll see that the central issue was the lack of any reliable source explicitly giving McNab's real name. People putting two and two together by cross-referencing different sources for components of the information (e.g. the London Gazette) is classed as original research, which is absolutely not allowed, and all the circumstantial evidence in the world won't cut it. There are plenty of places where the two names appear together, but previously there was not clear linkage that "Andy McNab is [whoever]." All that said, it seems that the Guardian reference has passed everybody by, and may actually be acceptable, but given the history it really needs discussing here first. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is certainly considered a reliable source for topics such as this. Is anyone going to argue against including his real name in the article now? – Smyth\^talk 13:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. – Smyth\^talk 17:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

One year later

Hello, Just been taking a nosey at this article and I can't find where the Guardian article mentions his real name and I can't find a source for his date of birth either? ツStacey (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed at length but the Guardian article doesn't appear to state his real name. Although his name is mentioned elsewhere, they all seem to be blogs or websites unsuitable for WP:BLPSOURCES as such I removed the name until a consensus can be reached, either on here or through WP:BLPN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buechlein (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The article did include his real name and it is Steven Mitchell. The online article was edited on 19 November 2014 and the name mysteriously disappeared. However, the Internet Archive version remains the same [6], and the version in the Infotrac datbase remains as a copy of the print version, and it clearly states his name (which is Steven Mitchell). Printed copies in libraries remain as they were printed. This is corroborated by the London Gazette medals and books on the B20 patrol. Le petit fromage (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just checking back in on this. As I previously mentioned, the current version of the Guardian article does not include the name - if The Guardian has removed the name, I think it stands to reason that it should not be published on this page. Other than that article, I don’t think there is a source that complies with WP:BLPSOURCES that isn’t original research. Whilst printed copies do remain the same, the cited article no longer contains the name. As such, and as there is still a lack of consensus on the name, I have removed it from the page. Buechlein (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"no sources" - apart from history books cited elsewhere (including in the B20 article). And I don't know how to put this again, but I'll say it again regardless: The Guardian edited their article. The original can be found if you know where to look (internet archive, Gale databases, print versions), but it's not the only source by any means. Le petit fromage (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is a reliable source for what the Guardian originally published. More independent sources would be good, so if editors are aware of history books giving the name, please add them to the article. – Smyth\^talk 13:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

How about The Library of Congress...? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andy McNab. 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/20120223224414/http://www.robmcgibbon.com/resources/pcw_andy_mcnab.pdf/ to http://www.robmcgibbon.com/resources/pcw_andy_mcnab.pdf

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) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)