Talk:Frank Dux

Talkpage archived, article cleaned up

I have cleaned up this article significantly, and have also archived the contents of the talk page, which was straying well beyond the confines of discussing this article. If you are going to add information to this article (whether positive or negative), ensure that there is a reliable source attached to it. Dux's own website is a reliable source for identifying what he states his martial arts style is. However, questions of legal issues must be sourced to third parties, not to court documents. Dux may well be an entrepreneur; however, the reference sources used in the past did not come close to meeting reliable sources.

I recommend that all proposed changes to this article be discussed on this page, complete with review of references, prior to their being included in the article. Risker (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I should point out you removed several referenced sections, these may have needed paring down to what the references supported, but whole sale removal seems overkill --Nate1481 08:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The "references" do not meet the reliable source criteria. They included links to websites that have long since died, those that went to general rather than specific pages, those that went to primary sources, and so on. Risker (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The one I remembered from previous discussions was the one from the LA times: "NINJA: Hero or Master Fake? Others Kick Holes in Fabled Past of Woodland Hills Martial Arts Teacher". Los Angeles Times. May 1, 1988. Retrieved 2007-05-17. even if the online version is gone i would have thought that this was a significant enough publication that it would stand, there was also a book ref: "Burkett, B.G. "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History" (Verity Press, 1998), ISBN 0-966-70360-X" that looked viable. --Nate1481 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat something I said earlier. I understand that everything isn't available online, but I do find it a little suspect that the only independent source for Dux's claims is an article nobody can see from a small newspaper in New Mexico. I do not have the article in front of me, but I strongly suspect that the reporter merely repeated the claims (ie Dux says this or that) rather than actually conducting an investigation. The LA Times article seems to be an investigative piece and I'm considering buying a copy, but since I can only use the copy for 90 days, I'd prefer to avoid the problem 3 months down the road where someone claims the source is being misrepresented. I'll try to grab the Stolen Valor book and see what help it provides. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of these sources were being used to refute claims that were not, in themselves, being presented in the article. Having a probably reliable source say "X did not do this, despite his claims" is meaningless unless one has a reliable source demonstrating the claim being made in the first place. For example, one cannot state that claims related to military service are false unless one includes the initial claim along with the reliable source confirming the claim was made. Risker (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. For example, could a primary source, such as Dux own site, be used to source that the claim has been made (ie "Dux has claimed XYZ on his website), then reference WP:RS's that dispute that? Further, he made many of his claims in the book he authored "The Secret Man". The other side of it is that the media has [repeated] his claims. For example, this from the NYT "and Frank Dux, a former undercover operator for the C.I.A. and subject of "Blood Sport." [1]. Or this from the Aug 2007 issue of Black Belt magazine "Van Damme plays real- life figure Frank Dux, who claims to have been a secret agent for the CIA and to have infiltrated an underground-fighting tournament ... ". July 2007 issue of Bluff magazine: "the film loosely based on the Asian underground fight career of supposed CIA agent/combat instructor Frank Dux, ...". So it's not that there are no reliable sources that repeat his claims. Incidentally, I stumbled on another potential article about the claims being false: [2]. And if you go back far enough in the article history, the claims were put in the article at one point or another. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are not unreliable by definition, they just require a pinch of salt; i.e. Putting in the claims Dux made as claims with a primary (therefore definitive) source and a refutation from a reliable source seems reasonable. Without the claims and refutations the article is a stub of dubious use and notability. --Nate1481 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

claim validity debate

here is a well-researched piece. I suppose we can take it as established that Dux was a regular martial artist who became a victim of the 1980s "ninja boom". The first time he pops up is in the November 1980 edition of Black Belt. None of his claims have ever been substantiated in the thirty years since. If he had wanted his fraud to outlast the years he should perhaps gone more easy in the completely pie-in-the-sky claims (undefeated after 329 matches...) --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Contrary to the falsehoods being represented on various self serving blogs like Iamsheamus, the fact is Blk Belt magazine specifically states in letters by the editor (as cited on Chasingthefrog.com) and IN its Nov 1980 issue it verifies Dux winning the kumite and setting 4 world records.

The producers of Bloodsport also confirm this FACT in the credit roll but this is being arbitrarily ignored. etc, along with a long list of sources who verified Dux accomplishments. Material facts that are corrorated through numerous court proceedings and unbiased articles that are credible and reliable unlike SOF magazine that is being cited in order to make an allegation by which to to cloud Dux reputation.

This reveals malicious conduct since no mention is made SOF was business compeitors of Dux or that their representations were shown through court filings as false and made relying on fabricated evidence. A metrial fact worth mentioning if the real intent here is to inform the reader not manipulate them through selecttive reporting of the facts.

Repeatedly, others misinformed us with their stating the court records are not reliable sources and cannot be cited - not admisable because they must be on Nexus Lexus, which according to Wikipedia policy and Mike Godwin is not the case. The material facts cited before, November 22, 2008 by Pamela Lee33 needs to be put back onto the page where it rightfully belongs.

Another falsehood was made when facts as reported in Artesia Daily, July 18, 2008 by author Kathy Kolt is removed through posturing by having falsely alleged Kathy Kolt repeats Frank Dux words when if one reads the article, this is definetly NOT TRUE! NOTE: IamSheamus accuses most everyone who supports Dux claims of being Frank Dux. Including the author Kathy Kolt.

The Artesoia Daily, July 18, 2008 verifies Dux acheivements, even citing him as a contributing source in creating the Navty SEAL specwar manual k431-0097 which is cooroborated by court records but this along with any other noteworthy facts is being deliberately prevented from mention. Malice.

The verified truth is plentiful. Again let me emphasize the material facts that were cited in previous posts expose the sources of controversy Stolen Valor, SOF magazine and the LA Times are proven to be unreliable sources and cannot be used. Their allegations should go unmentioned and be prevented from returning to the page, as thier use is a form of covert libel. 76.22.87.15 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Let's take these in order: 1) "The producers of Bloodsport also confirm this FACT in the credit roll but this is being arbitrarily ignored. etc, along with a long list of sources who verified Dux accomplishments" Are these the same Hollywood producers that told us the Jean Claude VanDamme was a martial arts champion in his own right? Is this the Hollywood that gave us the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart, but forgot the bridge that was impaerative to the victory? If you'd like an interesting activity, go to the reliable source message board and ask for uninvolved opinions about the validity of calling some mentions in the credits "facts".

2) "Material facts that are corrorated through numerous court proceedings and unbiased articles that are credible and reliable unlike SOF magazine that is being cited in order to make an allegation by which to to cloud Dux reputation." Dux sued SOF and lost. Enough said.

3)"The Artesoia Daily, July 18, 2008 verifies Dux acheivements, even citing him as a contributing source in creating the Navty SEAL specwar manual k431-0097 which is cooroborated by court records but this along with any other noteworthy facts is being deliberately prevented from mention." Major newspapers with a history of investigative reporting, like the LA Times, have found Dux's claims to be dubious. That article can be found. But somehow, an obscure newspaper in New Mexico decides to do some investigative reporting of their own (so you claim) and magically verifies all the stuff that the LA Times can't seem to find. And nobody can seem to find that article anywhere but on sites run by or affiliated with Dux. Why is that? Why could Holt pull off this investigative coup, yet has no other investigative articles to be found? And there is a HUGE gulf between being a contributor to a military manual and 392 consecutive wins.

4)"The verified truth is plentiful." Then where is it? Where is some of this plentiful truth that is NOT on a site run by or affiliated with Dux?

5) "Again let me emphasize the material facts that were cited in previous posts expose the sources of controversy Stolen Valor, SOF magazine and the LA Times are proven to be unreliable sources and cannot be used." A best seller, a decades old national magazine and a major newspaper are unreliable.......but an article by a reporter nobody heard of (Holt), published in a paper that nobody outside of a 50 mile radius reads and can't be found anywhere but on Dux affiliated sites is reliable? Seriously? You can't see why this seems odd to anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Now you display you failed to do your homework and lack the necessary insight and objectivity to be entrusted as the administrator of this page.

Counter-point, 1: Your response: Are these the same Hollywood producers that told us the Jean Claude VanDamme was a martial arts champion in his own right? Is this the Hollywood that gave us the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart, but forgot the bridge that was impaerative to the victory? If you'd like an interesting activity, go to the reliable source message board and ask for uninvolved opinions about the validity of calling some mentions in the credits "facts".

The fact for Dux world records to be in the credit roll and meet truth in advertising laws it is as a matter of standard and practice due diligence is caried out by the studio and distributor's part. The claims vetted (as in substantiated) as articles during this time periofd confirm this to be the case. Can you prove JCVD wasm't a champion in his own right? And what does that have to do with the fact the credit roll qualifies as a reliable and useable source under Wiki policy. But you chose to arbitrarily ignore this is a source of verification.

Counter Point, 2: Your response: Dux sued SOF and lost. Enough said.

The facts are in order for Dux to file his suit he had to prove to the court the allegations of fraud made by SOF were untrue. You were made aware of all the facts through prior posts SOF didn't assert the truth as a defense because they couldn't and it is only because of Times v Sullivan case law whereby Dux could not overcome the nearly impossible burden of proving actual malice required of public figures he was not allowed to go to trial... a fact you were acquainted with as it was posted but removed, unjustly removed as court records are considered reliable sources. To conceal or omit this fact suggests deceptiveness. Enough said.

Counter Point, 3: Your response: Major newspapers with a history of investigative reporting, like the LA Times, have found Dux's claims to be dubious. That article can be found. But somehow, an obscure newspaper in New Mexico decides to do some investigative reporting of their own (so you claim) and magically verifies all the stuff that the LA Times can't seem to find. And nobody can seem to find that article anywhere but on sites run by or affiliated with Dux. Why is that? Why could Holt pull off this investigative coup, yet has no other investigative articles to be found? And there is a HUGE gulf between being a contributor to a military manual and 392 consecutive wins.

Fact is Dux is a government whitle blower and major newspapers like the LA Times, as is identified in Dux book and as noted by Congressional Church Committee meetings, are guilty of of engaging in campaigns of what Dux book and military psych-ops calls "perception management." Thus, it is more common than naught small papers like the Artesia Daily will verify the truth as they are off the grid. Notwithstanding, the LA times article reads like a poison pen letter and lacks any objectivity and as you already were made aware of and fail to mention, it was shown in court proceedngs of libel and slander to promote overtly fabricated and false evidence and testimony, as credible. The so called smoking gun of a trophy receipt should have never been used but since it has it substantaites the author John Johnson is malicious and deceptive. I knew Ed Parker and others who saw Dux fight and said so to the reporter just like in Dux book but apparently the reporter rather feature and quote only the insignificant business competitors of Dux like Chuck Cory, rather than anyone of any stature like Ed Parker who shed light on the truth. Why Parker and others contradicted to manufactured outcome of the story. To see how ridiculous the receipt was go to chasingthefrog.com who in doing their research reversed their opinion on the matter and expose Johnson as not credible, engaging in the kind of yellow jourmalism that caused it to be sued for similar abuses, just like with P.Diddy Colmes.

Counter Point, 4: Your response: Then where is it? Where is some of this plentiful truth that is NOT on a site run by or affiliated with Dux?

The fact is what do you nmean by affiliated? The Black Dragon Fighting Society lists and verifies Dux acheivements and the sanctioning bodies, like Alliance a 16,000 member organization. How about court records of multiple suits in which the defense attempted to use the LA Times, Stolen Valor and SOF as sources to discredit Dux but in doing so these sources are shown to be invalid and not credible, the reasons why deleted through posturing.

Say, aren't you the one who says court records are unreliables and have to be posted on NexusLexus? I apologize in advance if it was someone else but there you have it the evidence exists... along with International Newspaper articles and Broadcast media, that announce his records and achiebvements that according to wikipedia policy are considered reliable sources but were arbitrarily removed when cited in the past.

Counter Point, 5: Your response: A best seller, a decades old national magazine and a major newspaper are unreliable.......but an article by a reporter nobody heard of (Holt), published in a paper that nobody outside of a 50 mile radius reads and can't be found anywhere but on Dux affiliated sites is reliable? Seriously? You can't see why this seems odd to anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it all sounds odd when framed in the narrow context you presented. Acheived by having neglected to consider to mention for others who might read this that each source is repeating and lending credence to the others unsubstantiated allegations that most all stem from a single source, the biased and untruthful LA Times reporter John Johnson. You neglect to weight and make others aware that past posts substantiate each has a motive and stood to personally benefit by their discrediting Dux. Artesia Daily and Kolt gains nothing either way.

The so called best selling book is self published and not vetted by professionals trained in due diligence like Dux book which isn't being allowed. That book is written by the same man outted in the nedia for being untruthful,promoting the Swift Boat lies as true and like with Dux, having manufactured a photo of Jon Kerry by which to discredit him as well in his book.

Problem with the author Burkett, no substantive evidence exists where Dux as is being alleged represents himself as a vietnam war veteran and is part of a speakers tour or was wearing medals outside of being in a college film class movie... In fact, as you were made aware by the posts he observably makes 600 unsubstatiated allegations baseed on hearsay and what is known to be fabricated evidence.

SOF magazine, Burkett move in the same circles considered to be political far right wing neo-Nazi Fasists whom by the way made the watch list of the anti-defamation league.

I find that unholy alliance going unmentioned and unconsidered odd, along with with deletion of any articles that exposed ABC Primetime coverage of Dux book was suppressed by sources outside of ABC network just like what occurred with CBS 60 minutes expose on the tobacco industry suppressed in an identical manner, whereby major newspapers issued similar sensationalized accounts hoping to discredit the anticipated testimony of another whistleblower, like Dux,... maybe, that's what is really going on here, do you think? No just same old trade libel of "Hatsumi cultists"... who are taught deceptive and unfair business practices are acceptable in acheiving ones monopolistic ends. Everyone but them are neo-Ninja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.87.15 (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, you sound exactly like a blocked member........and talking to you now is just as pointless as it was then. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to say some of this is sounding awfully like a conspiracy theory, (and no I do not have not and do not wish to work for any US government agency or NGO.) --Nate1481 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's a conspiracy theory here. Just a lack of support.

Tommy814 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You either love him or hate him

This article has been the target of POV pushers from both sides for years and I'm afraid it'll take even more drastic measures to ever get a neutral article out of it. -- œ^™ 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are "drastic measures"? There was a good reasoned debate going on about what sources could be used & what for before the IP started rating (again). --Nate1481 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no affection or disdain for the man. While I believe he has fabricated or stretched some things, I'm ok with that in his business promotion etc. If he wants to do that to make a buck and people buy into it, good on him. But for an encyclopedia article, I am not so generous. Things, especially extreme claims, need to be sourced by 3rd party, reliable sources. Copies of letters supposedly written to Dux and hosted on his own website don't meet that criteria. As I said, I've seen some great writings about investigating his background that cast Dux in a negative light, but I won't try to include them because they aren't from sources that pass WP:RS. I think that's only fair and neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your reasoning that means Mr. Dux's own military records and commendations are uncitable, because they were written to him. That's a BIG breakdown in logic. Most of the articles and letters are on file in court precedings and were admissable as evidence in the LA court system, but because he posts those same exact files on his home page it is now no longer admissable? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

So basically, the only way the guy could defend himself is to take these documents off his site, then re-link them to NexusLexus? Mike Godwin said court records ARE admissable. Is he wrong for posting the same court records on his site?

It's hard to say you're unbiased, based on your words. Either you ARE biased, or you have severely flawed logic. How can you sucessfully administor under those conditions?76.22.87.15 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not an administrator. Second, you've clearly never read WP:RS and you desperately need to.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the POV pushing has been fairly extreme. I don't believe that a well-sourced and documented "Controversy" section should be completely removed b/c of it. Simply but, Dux is a controversial figure and the article should reflect that. Certainly, NPOV sanitation is required, but outright deletion is excessive. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Deletions

I invite OLEnglish and Risker to actually explain their whole-scale deletions to this article. WP:BLP is not simply catch-phrase, I think you need to justify HOW the article actually violates this when there is a long-standing section that has numerous reliable sources per WP:RS. Deleting a sourced "Controversy" section was never the intent of WP:BLP, especially when the only objections to the section came from sock-puppet attacks.

Please actually respond to WHY you feel this article violates WP:BLP, otherwise I am reverting the article in two days. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, don't include my name in your dispute with Risker. I actually agree that the controversy section should stay. -- œ^™ 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems to me we had a consensus on this issue... I invite Risker to explain his rationale, as it puzzles the rest of the community. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just think the article has had major neutrality issues for a long time and that one option may be a complete ({{Reset}}) back to a bare-bones stub, but I acknowledge that is a drastic move and may not be needed yet. -- œ^™ 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll slowly add back the Controversy section and it can be discussed bit by bit. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the "Controversy" section now? I've tried to make it fairly sparse, and added Dux's rebuttal as well. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here is my humble opinion: I generally dislike controversy sections in BLP articles. However, I think it is inescapable with Dux. Dux has made a number of claims, both in writing and verbally. These claims have been documented by a number of reliable sources. He also made them in his own autobiography. While we typically don't allow first party sources, in the case of dcumenting what he claims about himself, it would be reasonable to use it to document that he says it about himself. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable present the dispute of those claims that are documented in reliable sources. What has been an issue in this article for me has been what some are trying to pass off as "proof" or as a reliable source. In something that has become this controversial for some editors, the only way to go, in my opinion, is to interpret WP:RS in a strict manner. For example, I highly doubt that any neutral editor would find fasstduxryu.com to be a reliable source since it is owned by or affiliated with the subject. General consensus on Wikipedia is that imdb.com is an acceptable source under limited circumstances. But most neutral editors would call the LA Times a reliable source. Likewise, the book "Stolen Valor" would be considered a reliable source to document the published statements of the author. That doesn't state that they are correct or incorrect, just that the author made the statements, in writing (and as such has to be subjected to libel laws), and that these are the statements he made. Public records, such as court records, are reliable sources, however, they need to be presented accurately. If I testify in court that I did XYZ, then the records reflect that I testified as such. Those records, however, do NOT "prove" that I did them. They only prove that I said I did them. Lastly, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they can be verified. WP:V always applies. A re-print or re-posting of something on a site that is neutral and reliable is acceptable, but hosted on a site that has an obvious conflict of interest would not be acceptable under WP:RS or WP:V. Now, if any of these editors would like to discuss these issues, without personal attacks and without rants, I'd be happy to engage in that discussion. It might be easiest to discuss each source seperately, on its own merits, then move on to the next one, rather than try to lump them all into one big discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• These have always been my issues with the article as well. I also believe that, per WP:BLP, we don't need to go into exhausting detail over each of the accusations leveled against him (hence the trimmed Controversy section.) However, I do believe at least mentioning them is required per WP:NPOV. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Believe it or not, I'm being attacked over my "aggressive" response here to the sockpuppets in a Wikiquette gripefest. Somehow, this talk page is "proof" of my "conservative bias". Go figure. I actually thought I made mostly policy based arguments here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)