Talk:Frank Dux

There ...

I've stripped out a fair bit of the adulatory BS and tossed in a chunk about the findings that Dux is a fraud. We'll see.  RGTraynor  05:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What 'findings' do you mean? I certainly see allegations and controversy in what is obviously a contested subject, but no 'findings', as that suggests some kind of authoritative consideration and decision. I'm just concerned that your tone suggest a certain lack of objectivity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT

<content removed - copyright violation of http://iamsheamus.com/everything-else/will-the-real-frank-dux-please-stand-up/>

(Pamela lee33 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC))--Pamela lee33 (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)pamela.lee33

I believe you have the best of intentions, Pamela lee33, but there are continual problems with the content you are adding;

1. You cannot add your opinion of things. Calling things "outrageous and false' is not acceptable unless your cites say this.
2. You cannot cut and paste entire articles into Wikipedia, even on the talk page. This is a copyright violation.
3. Your cites frequently just point to a website, without any indication where they verify what you are saying, if at all. Cites need to show the same facts that you are adding. For example, it is not enough to say a court case proved something, then link to the LA Courts website. How is anyone to know what happened, and what didn't, in the court case from this?
4. Please state things neutrally. You cannot label information on the article as "manufactured controversy" as this is your opinion of it. State the facts and let the reader weigh them up to determine whether it was 'manufactured' or not.
5. If there is cited controversial information in the article, then anything refuting it needs to be equally well cited.
6. Please don't add emphasis to text with CAPITALs It's messy and not part of the manual of style.
7. Part of the content looks like original research. Two examples;

• "In 2003 Frank Dux claims were vindicated when the CIA and Bush administration are exposed to have knowingly made 935 related false claims" - Who is making the connection between the exposure of the CIA and Bush, and Dux? Who is stating he was vindicated?
• "How it is obvious to anyone it is fraudulent given the fact it misspells something as basic as his name" - Who has stated it is "obvious to anyone"? Was this the decision of the court? Or your opinion?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that a great many of the claims in Dux's favor, presented in this article, comes from testimony presented by Dux in the court case, and just about every other assertion comes from his own claims in interviews. Neither constitutes credible, reliable, independent third-party sources as per WP:RS.  RGTraynor  17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm independent third-party and I vouch for the fact that Frank Dux is a true martial artist that I have the honor of studying under. This page needs to include the fact that he is a master of the martial arts and not just an actor and author. That at least is a very well known and verifiable fact by many documents, people, testimony and his own knowledge which I myself am learning from. Please add something to the main headline regarding the fact that he is indeed a martial artist. Avianraptor (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you are studying under him, you can hardly be considered an independent third party. In fact, having a personal relationship with him, you should be very mindful of possible WP:COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well what types of documentation do you people require? I've seen notarized documentation from the U.S.A. Martial arts hall of fame. That should be more than enough to acknowledge the fact that he is indeed a martial artist of a high degree. This needs to be included in this article. Avianraptor (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EXPANSION / NEW REFERENCE SOURCES

Thanks for the assistance I want to be as neutral, accurate and insightful as possible. I came across numerous sources and organized their info in a manner that puts the controversy into balanced perspective. One must when looking at all allegations, consider the source and this source's source as well... I believe we must operate with the belief innocent until proven guilty. Given what has been described as the rabid commercialization of martial arts. Forbes magazine points to the epidemic trade libel atmosphere of the internet. The fact is there exist those that create controversy especially surrounding celebrities in order to benefit. An allegation without proof is just that and to just point out someone is accused without mentioning what they are accused of specifically or by whom, generalizing, is unethical. To assert the majority of martial artists contest Dux accomplishments is absurd. The internet blogs of some that benefit through spin, hardly, represents or reflects the feeling of the whole industry. I am sure all can tell while I am new at this I did my fair share of research, even into examining the possible motives of and pattern of behavior of the sources of his criticism. In doing extensive research and not taking the words of journalists I have come to believe Mr. Dux is the target of highly skilled individuals who promote their own hidden agendas through the telling of half truths, posturing and presenting fabricated evidence as credible, which in and of itself is an important detail one should be acquainted with if one is studying his biography. It should not be left open ended, as done previously. His voice in his defense should be allowed and heard if he stands accused of any wrong doing. The Secret Man, HarperCollins is not self published and is vetted (facts independently verified)by HarperCollins legal staff. It is absurd to think a mainstream publisher printed a book without doing extensive due diligence.

Pamela lee33 (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the article now is that it goes completely over the top in proclaiming Dux' efforts and qualifications. And these things are cited either from fan sites, or from Dux' own websites. We need something more reputable and independent. Citing from his own autobiography is fine, but not with disputed facts. HarperCollins legal staff are not responsible for factually checking content, Dux can claim anything he wishes and be within the law. HarperCollins legal staff are only going to check that nothing in the book libels other people and result in a court case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No Citation Needed

No citation is necessary, it is already provided by reference #3. However, I shall provide more corroborating sources to improve the accuracy and verification of fact. Over the top? I was trying to take the suggestion of documentation seriously, and when is more information a bad thing, particularly, when it sheds a light on those sources that are listed and in actuality are shown in a court of law and in the media to be not credible and self serving? Isn't more information better?

I do not appreciate the blanket accusation that the majority of my sources stem from fan sites. That is simply not true and irrelevant as third party verified facts are what is being presented, as required. --Pamela lee33 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the majority of your cites aren't from fan sites. They claim this court case as a cite, which isn't in fact a valid cite that proves jack. Even if you cited an actual URL for the documents in that case - which you don't - in all likelihood the so-called "facts" alleged from that case are almost certainly from Dux himself in an affidavit and/or deposition, and not at all certified as verified fact by the court. While I'm sure this will wind up in RfC, the best bet per WP:RS will be to eliminate the case completely as a cite until someone can link to the Westlaw PDFs.  RGTraynor  07:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems;

• There are five cites lifted from www.fasstduxryu.com, a personal website "dedicated to World-renowned Martial Science Grandmaster Hanshi" Not exactly a unbiased source and a fan site if I every saw one.
• There are three cites from myspace, which is never acceptable as a reputable source.
• The site www.sustainableangels.com is a company that appears to be partly owned by Dux, so its grandiose claims of "saving the children of Africa and Asia" and "the very first circle of life" can be taken with very large pinches of salt, and are hardly NPOV.
• The site www.urbandictionary.com contains user generated content, so is not considered reputable. Nor is the comment "The name Frank Dux is iconic" neutral.
• The many cites to lasuperiorcourt.org offer the reader nothing of any value. They appear to merely refer to claims that Dux made in court cases, but often it's not clear exactly how the cite is supporting the text. No mention is made of what the court thought or decided about the claims, if anything. But either way, the cites are totally uninformative and don't help the reader determine anything about the facts.

Really, if you want your edits to be more credible you'll need to tone down the adulation. It would appear to me that many of the claims against Dux are unfounded and/or unproven. But the tone of your edits, and the text on his websites, also indicate that he's not above self-mythology, nor shy about hyping his own achievements. Wikipedia can only strive to find the neutral, middle ground. And right now many of the statements in this article stray way too close to uncritical praise and promotion of his endeavours. Believe me, I want a fair and balanced article here, for too long this article looks like its been a playground for those with axes to grind on both sides. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Over-reaching

What are these assertions and assumptions? I pulled the court case from the courthouse and took copious notes. The files are available through URL that I cite and are more valid than just a line out of periodical, considering the representations are made under penalty of perjury or are a direct source. The court citations I cite are not from Dux but actual exhibits, such as the US Navy SEAL Specwar manual where he is listed as contributing source subjected to rules of evidence. The www.fasstduxryu.com site is used chiefly in reference as to describing his system otherwise where else did one expect to find this? As well as, it makes available video of masters supporting the fact the Kumite exists, he did it for real, and this is known by credible masters contrary to what is being fraudulently promoted, as mythical or self generated. To willfully misrepresent a falsehood in print is to commit libel.

Dux myspace is sited as a referral source for photographic evidence and in relation to Dux speaking about himself as per his business goals of which should be allowed for what it is.

The sustainable angels website is valid as it is not Dux business as being alleged but an independent third party source that refers to Dux Inc (his business) and what contributions Frank Dux has made to saving the lives of children in Asia and Africa.

I'd had hoped we can function free of posturing, assumptions and mis characterization going on, particularly, regarding court documents. I cite and attribute what representations come from Frank Dux to Frank Dux as he has a right to be heard in counter balancing the accusations being leveled against him that comprise controversy section and libel and slander. The facts are the facts... What is the agenda, really, because in hearing the arguments to remove pertinent information it doesn't seem to be one based in fact but instead the suppression of it. --Pamela lee33 (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a few of the more obvious problem text;

• "Pop Culture Icon" - this section is not neutrally phrased and relies on a cite from urbandictionary, which is not a reputable source.
• Neutralised introduction to 'Controversy' section. Previous version started out from a position of attacking those who have questioned Dux. Far more neutral to state what the dispute is and let the reader decide who has been "subjected".
• Removed hyperbole about saving children in Africa and Asia. Wikipedia should stick to the facts; Dux Inc is involved with the "Clean World Wide Water Plan" and is using money from investments in The Barnett Shale to do this. All the "circle of life" PR puffery from a Primary source just confuses things.
• Tidied FASST section. Toned down claims that were touting it as a solution for all life's problems. If you want to have these we'll need just a bit more than throw-away buzzwords, and again, from somewhere other than a primary source.

Outstanding problems;

• We now have a controversy section, and a libel section that cover pretty much the same ground, and badly.
• The controversy section dives into a defense of Dux, without actually ever really explaining exactly what he was accused of. So the reader is left mystified as to what the fuss is all about.
• By going to great lengths about the legitimacy of Dux' claims, all that's achieved is a suspicion that the writer of the article wasn't neutral, and is far too defensive to be telling the whole story.
• What's needed is a merging of the two sections, stating the facts from both side, including the court case findings, then let the reader decide. This is what is known as being neutral. If the facts are as clear cut as you suggest then they do not need to be introduced in any other way.
• The LA Court cites are still messy and largely useless. You say the information is available on the website. Where?
• If the LA Court cites are to be any use they will need to be presented in a far more structured fashion. They're all over the article just now and largely incomprehensible in the contexts they're present in.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Slanted Writing

This article is shoddy and sounds like a fan page for Mr. Dux written by a devout believer in his message. Even when attempting to document some of the numerous criticisms and inconsistencies of Mr. Dux, the author makes comments to negate any alternate viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.41.91 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

--Fact vs. Opinion--

I have gone through extensive research to base this article on verified documented facts. Alternate viewpoints are always welcome but need to be based on solid documented fact of similar quality not opinion or blogs. Remember we are dealing with the biography of a living person and I think the rules are specific regarding that. --Pamela lee33 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources please!

If claims are to be inserted into this article, they must be properly sourced. Myspace, youtube, personal websites, and websites setup by Frank Dux do not meet the criteria of WP:RS and WP:EL. Court records are useable, but they must actually be referenced. A dead link to the LA Court system does not suffice.

We are more than willing to include more rebuttal evidence for Mr. Dux, but it needs to be referenced with sources admissible by WP:RS and WP:CITE.

Djma12 ^(talk) 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How much of a reliable source do you need to include the fact that Frank Dux is a master of martial arts, aside from entrepreneur, actor, author and all that? Do you need him to show up and give you a friggin demonstration? I'm a student of his and I can vouch that he is indeed a martial artist. Why is this not included in the lead-in article for this page? This seems more like a page focused upon controversy than an actual biography of someone. If Wikipedia truly wishes to pursue truth in it's articles, the fact that Mr. Dux is a master of the martial arts cannot be overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avianraptor (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

THE SOURCES ARE RELIABLE & ACCESSIBLE

I strongly disagree with the blanket allegation the sources are unreliable as they are third party sources, as required. The mischaracterization of these sources is what is in need of serious inspection. To eliminate material evidence is not in anyone's best interest. While we might go to a link that is Frank Dux myspace page or websites, where did one expect to go if for example it is photographic evidence that is being cited... or awards... substantial material evidence not created by Frank Dux just located there for everyone's inspection.

Sustainable Angels is apparently a credible company that cites and references Dux Inc. and Frank Dux Philanthropic efforts, why this should be eliminated for the resons stated is absurd. Shall we eliminate mention of others who acted charitibly because the only source of recognition is a company website page not under their control, like Dux.

There is no dead link to the court records all you just need to do is enter the case number provided and pay the appropriate fees, which apparently someone was kind enough to do. YouTube is certainly admissable when it is video footage of an occurence that has been contested as having never occurred or is misreported, etc.

I agree with whoever said this sounds to me there is some over-reaching and politicing going on. I think it is a very informative article and to alter it is to do a diservice to wikipedia and us readers. I have never engaged the idea of involving myself in this project until I saw the change that occured here and the information that went up. Now others appear to be hell bent on posturing and then censoring and removing the facts. Carried out through what I perceive to be an intentional mischaracterization of the facts.

The changes made to this article are libelous as they are intended to cast doubt on Mr. Dux character and are written in a manner to purposefully bolster and willfully in a legally couched manner send to people to sources that have been prosecuted for libel and slander and shown in a court of law to have presented fabricated evidence. While we are at it why dont we say how buzz aldrin and the astronauts claimed to land on the moon and have been accused of falsely bolstering their accomplishments. This is pure spin probably to avoid embarassment for bullshido.net that is owned by Jimmy Wales who also founded wikipedia.

--12.161.106.26 (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article has always been to present the facts in a neutral a manner as possible and let the reader consider the veracity of the sources and determine the truth. This is what Wikipedia, and encyclopaedia's do. See also Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of the youtube cites; there were two in the article and I have removed them for the following reasons.

• Youtube videos can be uploaded by anyone and can make any claims to be anything without any way of the truth of them being verified. This means they often fail Wikipedia policy of reputable sources.
• They are often copies of copyrighted material and are copyright violations. Wikipedia avoids links to copyright violations.
• The first referenced video was a series of photographs that may be relevant. But there is nothing there that verifies anything about the preceding claims about Dux.
• The second was a reference that is introduced with the weasel words "alleged" and "considered". Who is alleging? Who is considering? Besides that it is a small clip of a fight that could be anyone, anywhere, anytime. The connection to Dux is again not evident. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Other material introduced into the article do not present matters neutrally and include speculation as to the motivations of others. And sources that have been "prosecuted for libel and slander" means nothing unless they have been declared guilty. As it is, it is impossible to sort out what Dux claims in the court case were, what the facts were, and what the court decided. This is chiefly because various editors refuse to differentiate between the three and present them all as one and the same. The article still dives into a long winded defence of Dux against his detractors, without actually making any attempt at making clear what his detractors claim. So how the reader is supposed to determine if the claims are unjust or not is a mystery.

The fact there are two sections, one "Controversy" and one "Libel & Slander" which cover much the same ground is extremely confusing. Particularly when events of the Libel case are used to refute the claims in the "Controversy" section. Are they, or are they not, separate?

Frankly the article is a total mess, and even the bits that are acceptable are so poorly written that it is a challenge to anyone to make sense of them. Is it possible to keep a sentence in the same tense and not running off in three directions without the benefit of any punctuation? We all have the same aim here, I hope, and that is producing a fair, balanced and legible article. All this layering on of impenetrable opinions, cites that do not, in fact, support anything, and irrelevant detail is not helping. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How to properly cite court documents

Again, the LA court documents are perfectly acceptable per WP:RS, but need to be cited in a verifiable fashion. Lexus-Nexus takes five minutes people -- if the source actually exists, please cite from there or another reputable judicial repository. Please don't simply cite to the LA Court System website. Also, court documents do not "prove" anything, they only exist as another source of documentation. Edits should reflect thusly. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Trade Libel by Willful Removal of Material Facts

By removing legitimate sources in a caculated manner as to inflict harm to Dux reputation and standing the Dux article is evidently commiting libel. It is sinisterly preserving controversy by pointing people in direction of sources shown to have committed libel and slander and were shown in a court of law as not credible, its source/citation removed. Why is this fact and its citation removed, as this orginated from a news article?
By apparently eliminating key contradictory and material sources such as periodical Artesia Daily, July 18, 2008 and others this is more evidence of intent to harm Dux. This is made clear. There is no excuse for this. The existence of documentation cited should suffice. Prove that they dont exist before removing them and erasing the hard work of someone who has obviously invested a great deal of time and money in revealing the truth and valuable facts by which to use this as a serious source. Whether court records are cited via nexus lexus or not is irrelevant under the law, it is the fact that they do exist and when arbitrarily removed in order to allow the libel and slander of another person is inescusable, is it not under the eyes of the law. Wiki policy does not over-ride civil procedures, particularly, in matters of trade libel.
I think this all part of technical manuevering done to preserve undeserved controversy being promted on sites owned by Dux business competitors as well as owner founder of wikipedia, Bullshido.net, sociodcide, Jimmy Wales, that benefit by this trade libel. By eliminating material facts to support known fraudulent statements or paint a picture that is injurying another person's ability to compete fairly; repeating or directing people to libel is to be guilty of libel which correcting to me is of a higher priority in terms of what is and is not against wiki policy.
Why was the abundance of reference sources regarding other periodicals removed? We all know why and this manuevering is as i stated inconsequential when it comes to injurying or placing doubt upon a person's name and business goodwill, which wikipedia has done given a long history of making fraudulent and libelous claims against Mr. Dux with no ability due to illness to respond to his detractors.--12.161.106.26 (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to calm down, anon12. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and paranoiac talk does little to help your argument. Dial back the aggro, redact all the legal bullshit from your post, and deal with this like a civil person. You prolly won't like the repercussions if you don't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, but I think I've explained often enough what is wrong with the recent additions. The main problem are not the cites, but the way they have been presented; coupled to unverifiable claims or claims that simply are not in the cites. In addition the re-writes are badly written and chaotic, leaving a poor article in an even greater confusing mess. When you add this to the blatant "fan-page" content of some of the additions, is it any surprise that they were removed?

There's still much that could be done to improve this article, to everyone's satisfaction. But we need to begin with facts, not claims, neutrally presented --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sources Do Seem Solid Against Aspects of Dux's Military Career

In simple terms, Dux has claimed a ton of stuff which has been proven false. I am not sure how it serves in the best interests of accuracy to gloss over these facts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.41.91 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank Dux's Nationality

I don't remember reading this anywhere but page 45 of his 1996 book The Secret Man: "When I was seven, my family moved from Canada to California. In my neighborhood in Toronto, all the families on our block slept with the doors and windows wide open on hot summer nights. The United States seemed violent." Wouldn't this make him Canadian? or at least Canadian-American? Nitron (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Nitron

Citation query

This citation: Kolt, Kathy (July 18), "The Untold Story Of Actor Frank Dux, Hanshi", The Artesia (NM) Daily Press: 9 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help) appears to be related to The Artesia Daily Press of new mexico, but when I search for Dux I get nothing [1] is this the article refered to? --Nate1481 13:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nate. What we have is a random, unverifiable citation insert to support a blatant POV by an anonymous, single purpose account. This article goes through this over and over again. I suggest that if citation verification is not confirmed, we go ahead and sanitize the article again. Sigh... Djma12 ^(talk) 15:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt it was likely a POV push, but hoped for the best... --Nate1481 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to disagree, the citation is verifiable and I am sorry to discover you are having difficulty in verifying this as I had no difficulty. Therefore, if anyone needs a copy of the article as it appeared in print I am happy to email it to them or might I suggest contacting the newspaper by telephone for a copy, directly. I also have a copy of several Declarations made under penalty of perjury by the appropriate representatives of those agencies that corroborate the facts as represented by The Artesia Daily. They were submitted as exhibits as part of court actions, previously, cited and arbitrarily removed. I find it disturbing that greater importance is being given to supporting and lending credence to what has been shown to be unsubstantiated allegations stemming from biased sources shown not credible, relied upon by the LA Times, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and Stolen Valor that obviously lack any journalistic objectivity and is what is commonly referred to as a hatchet job.

The LA Times is an editorial not an article and is by its very definition POV. The removal of this important biographical information damages the article and Wikipedia's credibility every time some one finds important details like this are being kept from being mentioned through what appears to be political maneuverings and unwillingness to do the necessary legwork, others like myself are willing to do but apparently are being discounted and slighted. Inferring because this is my first article I am serving some kind of hidden agenda. Why not help me get the accurate information sourced and coded after I invested the time to locate it than dismiss it? I take pride in doing the in depth research which includes examination of sources that are not confined to the internet, as my intentions are honorable.--76.121.103.42 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to Frank Dux sources

You may find citations, histories etc., at www.frankdux.net. The Forum is located at www.frankdux.net/duxforum. The "Controversy" is not discussed within the Forum and any such topic, posts will probably be deleted. However, the "Controvery", as a subject, is provided at www.frankdux.net/conroversy. The Forum was down during most of 2008 but is now up and open for General Discussions. Publius352 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for what classifies as a reliable source. Frankdux.net doesn't even come close. Djma12 ^(talk) 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BIAS AND CENSORSHIP OF VERIFIED FACTUAL EVIDENCE

This article has been vandalized. It is biased against Frank Dux. Citation needed proceeds facts mentioned when the citation is given in order to plant the seeds of doubt. The article obviously degenerated from being informatrive and factual into resembling a junior high school level book report. Reliable verifiable sources like court records that meet wikipedia criteria as once submitted by pamela lee.33 are arbitrarily declared invalid why?

Posturing www.frankdux.net to be declared as non-reliable is underway. Why? So it can be removed from mention, too?

Malicious intent is made clear.

For instance, there is no excuse for removing the posted talk comments of others along with the sources they quote verbatim in establishing the facts. The shameful ruse used to do so by declaring this is copyright infringment does not apply. The justification given is an obvious device to conceal verified facts from being made known. Especially, as reported by mainstream journalists addressing the issue of perception management of Frank Dux.

The arbitrary removal of verified and cited facts reveals a concerted effort to prevent others from discovery of verified facts is occuring here. Such as, viewing frankdux.net one will find court docs, etc. that dispell the lies being told about Frank Dux on internet blogs.

NOTE: The Dec. & Jan 2009 Martial Arts Illustrrated UK article has now been removed as a reference source and intentionally goes without mention. Why? Because it addresses the misleading facts libeling Dux in a legally couched manner.

Wordsmithing as in using the word "Controversy" in place of the aforementioned and more appropriate heading "Libel and Slander" of Frank Dux is an example of propaganda tactics/perception management.

How is www.frankdux.net not considered credible source? Especially, in comparison to referring others to a biased non-objective "EDITORIAL" like the LA Times 1988. An editorial does not qualify as a reliable source. In addition, it cannot even be considered worth mentioning particularly when the reporting and reporter is shown in a court of law of willfully presenting fabricated evidence, as credible. A material fact which goes intentionally unmentioned and is actively being concealed from Wikipedia readers through its arbitrary removal...along with the other material facts, such as where B.G. Burkett is shown to have lied and benefit as his book is self published, not credible. Making 600 unsubstantiated allegations, etc. a material fact worth knowng now removed.

It is obvious this apparent libel and censorship of Frank Dux and his accomplishments is being done for the purposes of promoting a hidden agenda - posturing for removing www.frankdux.net is evidence of malicious intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.103.42 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read WP:Primary sources this might answer your question about why www.frankdux.net is considered unreliable. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy At Work

Given the fact the LA Times May 1988 issue is an editorial and not unbiased as a source it violates NPOV policy. It should be removed. There is no evidence to support the reporters claim outside of two to three self serving individuals citing fabricated evidence to support the allegation Dux has been accused of making false claims... This sounds more like a discussion than repeating facts in evidence. Dux libel and slander suit warrants the change Dux has been FALSELY accused of making false claims and exaggerated claims since there exists no evidence to show his claims are untrue and to leave the statement open ended is a matter of opinion and injures a person's reputation... Every notable person has their critics and their opinions and accusations do not belong in a biography. --Oni.maru53 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

LA Times Article

Ok, this is the second time that a SPA has claimed that the LA times reference should be removed b/c it is "an editorial."

Please provide some evidence of your claim that this article is an editorial. The LA Times archive of the article does not list it as an editorial, and the author of the article is listed as a staff writer.

Djma12 ^(talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a NPOV when the facts are so clear?

The whole story of Frank Dux and the Kumite is a fraud. There is no such thing as the "Kumite" tournament.

Does anyone honestly believe that such a world class underground full contact tournament could have gone on, and there would remain no evidence of it beside Dux's testimony? Anyone who could produce evidence of such a thing would have a million dollar story, but no one has. Wouldn't someone eventually come forward, or one or two fighters maybe speak out against it? What about the families of the fighters? Wouldn't they notice that their loved ones come home with broken bones and missing teeth? Dux himself claims that there were fatalities. In that case wouldn't the families of the dead fighters investigate what happened? Dux further claims that there were spectators gambling in the event (as in the movie), then how could they keep the silence of the spectators for all these years? To this day there remains no video, or pictures or anything to substantiate Dux's claims.

Dux further claims that he holds the record for the fastest "kick with a knockout" at 72 mph. This makes no sense whatsoever. Is there a cop with a radar gun next to ring, measuring the speed of every strike? A 72 mph kick seems impossible, as swords don't even swing that fast. Someone wouldn't just "jump into" such an event either, but they would have training partners, and a record of their fighting career. They would have won tournaments, and fought in other full-contact venues (like ones that actually exist), yet their is no footage or evidence of Dux's participation in such events. He is a martial artist, but nothing like he claims.

The only thing that's been knocked out here is Dux's credibility. Soldier of Fortune magazine exposed his lies about his military career. Using the Freedom of information act they showed that the actual years of his service in the military don't match up with his claims. He could have never served in Vietnam, and was never a special op like he claims. They exposed a picture of him in the military as a hoax, by showing that the ribbons and medals on his uniform are inconsistent with his branch of service. His own response to this is that the uniform was a costume that he was wearing on the way to a halloween party. You gotta be kidding me. Dux sued them for libel and lost.

He also sued Jean Claude Van Damme, saying that he (Dux) had come up with the story for the movie "The Quest", and that Van Damme had made a contract with him for royalties that were never paid. Dux failed to produce any evidence of such a contract, and claimed that the missing evidence was destroyed in an earthquake. Van Damme's lawyer ripped Dux's credibility to shreds, showing that Dux's apartment was not damaged like he said it was, and produced a cast of witnesses to support that Dux is a story teller and pathological liar.

In his book, Dux goes on to make other astounding claims about being a real life James Bond character working for the CIA during the 80's, and many more fantastic tales. The publisher (Harper Collins) pulled the book, and not due to poor sales either. Maybe because they realized they had been duped by this guy, just like the producers of the movie Bloodsport. Just goes to show how little credibility Hollywood has, even when they make the claim that something is based on a true story. 71.233.140.67 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• First, let me say I agree with you. I want to make that clear, because you're not going to like the answer I have to give you. Read WP:TRUTH and one of the first things you will see is: "Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I don't like that. You probably won't either, but that is the state of affairs. Those excellent questions you asked? Those are considered original research WP:OR. If someone else asks them in a reliable source, then we can add that to this article. But until they do, we can't. Although we can all edit here, we don't own Wikipedia. So when Dux disagrees with something and decides to sue, he doesn't come after Niteshift36 (although he might try), he comes after Wikipedia. The standard for biographies of living people WP:BLP is even higher than for articles about the deceased or other topics. I can't, for example say that Mr. John Doe is a lying a-hole on Wikipedia if he is still alive. I can't even say it on a talk page or my own user page. But if a writer in Time magazine does an interview where his former boss calls Doe a lying a-hole, we can possibly include that. There are a lot of people who have asked the questions you did. I've even read some excellent writings of people who researched Dux pretty in-depth. But they posted it on websites or blogs that don't qualift as a reliable source WP:RS, so they can't be included here. I wish I had an answer that would make you happy (I know this one doesn't), but that is how things work here. Hope it helps you understand a little better. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that biographies shouldn't be written condemnations of people, but I did want to point out how ridiculous some of this stuff is. If someone has researched him well, and can back up what they say, then how they publish their information shouldn't really matter. There's no such thing as name or brand credibility anymore. 71.233.140.67 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it should be an attack piece, but it would be nice if he had to prove the things he claims. Unfortunately, he made the claims to a WP:RS and they printed them, so they can be placed in the article. Weird, huh? The thing is though, his claims are identified as claims, not as fact ("Dux claims...." or "he says...") But I have to disagree about how they publish it isn't relevent. Anyone can put anything on a blog or forum. That doesn't mean it should be reliable enough to put in an encyclopedia article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Frank Dux is a master of martial arts.

Avianraptor (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to add to this article. You need to be more specific about the change you would like implemented. The {{editsemiprotected}} template requires a "please change X to Y" level of detail. Also, factual changes require reliable sources in any article, but this is especially true for a biography of a living person. Please re-open the request when you have decided on the specific change and found sources for it. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)