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? 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)

There will always be controversy surrounding Frank Dux. There is good info on many of his accomplishments and a lack thereof on others. His alleged involvement in the government could be a hindrance in providing facts surrounding his military career and even his involvement in the Kumite. The whole fake trophy thing sounds to me like a "he said she said" but Dux's claims seem more valid than those of that L.A. Times reporter, however that needs more looking into. I think there should be more focus on validating his martial arts records for starters. I'll see what I can dig up either way. http://www.usadojo.com/biographies/frank-dux-2.htm seems to be one of the only non-Dux sites to confirm the records that I've seen so far.Tommy814 (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, if you want to discuss constructively, let's do that. First, the usadojo.com site will not qualify as a WP:RS. They are simply an info hub. They accept articles written by anyone and depend on readers to tell them if something is incorrect. The article itself is written by a man who describes Dux as "My personal hero". That is hardly considered neutral. The article itself does not confirm anything, it simply repeats Dux's claim. There is a big difference between reporting what someone has said and confirming it on his own. Now about the part you mentioned about his alleged govt. involvement making it hard to confirm.....Let me play devil's advocate here. Let's assume for a minute that he was involved in covert operations and did compete. We also have to assume that the Kumite actually existed and that everyone knew it was happening, but there is no record of it. Then we have to ask why, out of the hundreds of competitors that entered, why is Dux the only one who went public? Why can't we find one or two of the literally hundreds of people that Dux says he defeated to go on record as saying "Frank Dux kicked my ass"? Doesn't that strike anyone as strange? Why wouldn't Dux have produced some of those guys to testify in his failed lawsuits? I mean come on, wouldn't at least a couple testify on his behalf out of respect if it were true? Speaking of legal actions, I know that everyone that leaves US govt. service with a security clearence has to sign a non-disclosure agreement that lasts 50 years. Why was Dux never afraid that he'd be prosecuted for violating it by telling all the details?One has to consider the possibility that he had no fear of it because he never signed one to begin with. I'll stop with just these points for now. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point about nobody else going public about it. My thoughts would be that since it was an illegal event nobody wanted to discuss it through fear of repercussions. The thing that really stands out to me though, is Frank Dux's DD-214 discharge papers. They show him being seperated from active duty for "training purposes" 6 months after he enlisted, underwent ENTNAC and was seperated with a notation claiming that it was not a final discharge. To me that speaks volumes. I was in the military as well and never had anything to do with ENTNAC. Thats a security clearance for government agencies, not mlitary occupations. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discharge2.gif

Tommy814 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • We'll assume for the sake of discussion that the DD214 is accurate. You most likely did have an ENTNAC. ENTNAC is nothing special. It is simply an ENTrance Nation Agency Check. Anyone entering the military has this done. That is the lowest level in existence and NOT a security clearence of any kind. My own was higher simply to get into my MOS, then was raised based on assignment. All an ENTNAC does is show you're not wanted or on any watch lists. Here is a good explaination: A national agency check (NAC) consists of a check of the files of a number of government agencies for pertinent facts bearing on the loyalty and trustworthiness of the individual. Examples of agencies checked are the FBI and the Defense Central Index of Investigations. The NAC conducted on a first-term enlistee in the Navy or Marine Corps is called an entrance NAC (ENTNAC). The primary reason for the ENTNAC is to determine the suitability of an individual for entry into the service. If a service member reenlists after a break in active service greater than 12 months, an NAC (not an ENTNAC) is requested. That is from this site: [3]. To even ATTEND intelligence training, Dux would have to submit to a SSBI (single scope backgroud investigation), but since his highest background was an ENTAC, we know he did NOT have a SSBI, therefore couldn't have even gone to the school. Dux couldn't have completed intelligence training. Marine Boot camp alone is 12 weeks (3 months). His total active service is only 4 months and 7 days. That means his intelligence training had to be completed in 5 weeks. None of those schols are over in 5 weeks, nor are they held in California. Further, it lists his speciality as 0200, which is a trainee. Had he completed training, the 3rd and 4th number would not be zeros. Verify all that I have said about the training here: [4]. In short, his DD214 doesn't support his claims in any manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Point taken, but what I found interesting is the fact that he was discharged from his tour of duty for training purposes after only 6 or so months in service, noting that it was not a final discharge. Coincidentally this would corroborate the timeframe he claimed he entered the Kumite. Now what has been said is that he was working with the CIA when he entered the Kumite so I find the discharge timing to be very coincidental. Not proof by any means but it does make one wonder. I think it's something worth digging a little further into if at all possible, but having the proof that he even served in the CIA is most likely impossible unless Dux himself was to provide some sort of proof to Wikipedia. I stand corrected on the definition of ENTNAC. I myself probably had the same thing when I joined the Army, I just don't remember that acronym. I do agree that his DD214 doesn't support his claims as a whole but it does add some proof that he was discharged into "training" right around the time of the Kumite. The training could be a cover but I'm not going to use this forum for speculation I just wanted to add that little note. Hopefully Frank Dux himself will take notice of this site and add some of his own proof if he has it. That would be a great burden lifted from those of us that would like to see verification of his world records.Tommy814 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess I should have explained his release. It says "released from initial tour of active duty for training." That does NOT mean he was released to attend training. It means he was ON active duty for training. Dux was in the Reserves(which you can see in block #5, it says USMCR), not the active duty Marine Corps. When a Reservist (or National Guard solider in the case of the Army) goes to training, he is placed on active duty (ie full-tme status). After he left his basic training, he was released from active duty and went back to a reserve unit that you see in block 9b. If you look in block 18d, you see he had 2 months and 1 day of inactive service prior to his reporting for active duty. That was after his enlistment, but prior to going on active. In other words, he drilled twice. If you look at the second post in this forum: [5], you'll see someone talking about how a National Guard soldier will get a DD214 "being release from active duty status (training)" In short, Dux wasn't released to attend secret or any other training, he was sent back to his reserve unit. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect, block 9b shows the unit from which he is being discharged, not the one he is being sent to. He was being separated from an FMF unit (block 11) which is "Fleet Marine Force", which has it's own wikipedia page that I'm too lazy to link to right now, and being transferred to HQ Btry (Headquarter Battery) for training. I was in the military myself and am well aware of DoD documentation and DD-214 forms. This form, if read correctly, shows a separation from an active duty unit to a training facility. Fleet Marine Forces do not "drill". It's essentially the same as the Marine Expeditionary Unit or MEU. Tommy814 (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are using what you know today about an Army DD-214 and applying it to a Marine DD214 from the 1970's. I bet if you look at the bottom of yours, it doesn't say DD-214MC, does it? Blow the form up in size, like I did. He was being tranferred from one to the other, but not for the puposes of training. Thats for personnel reason (ie who maintained his file). He was only on active duty for training as a Reservist. You only get a 214 if you are leaving active duty. Did you ever get a 214 when you were just PCSing from one unit to another? Of course not. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Then please tell me why he was leaving an FMF unit (which is not a training unit) and going to the HQ battery of the same division?Tommy814 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just a paperwork shuffle that determines which unit would be the custodian of his file. Remember, a battery indicates an artillery unit, yet Dux was never trained in artillery, nor ever claimed to be trained in artillery. They were paperwork custodians. Bottom line: He was a reservist and according to the document, only spent time on active duty for boot camp. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking about his involvement with the FMF. They aren't paper shufflers. Look up Fleet Marine Force and answer me this, Why would he be in boot camp with a combat-ready amphibious assault team? I believe you are misreading the form. The FMF is not a training camp nor is it a paperwork depot.Tommy814 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm fully aware of what the FMF is. I didn't say he was taking boot camp with a FMF unit. But this FMF force is all reservists. Perhaps you should hear a little history of that exact Marine unit: "The battalion consists of three 155mm towed artillery batteries that are part of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. Each battery is comprised of approximately 120 Marines and Sailors who are managing full-time civilian careers while at the same time serving their country as members of the Naval Service. Additionally, each Battery has a small active duty Inspector-Instructor staff who are assigned to the unit for a three-year tour in order to assist in preparing the battery for full mobilization and/or subsequent combat action as required. The Inspector-Instructor Staff is the active duty component of the Battery. They administer the logistics, training, administrative and medical support required to keep this Battery mobilization ready in the event of a crisis." You can find that info here: [6]. Also if you read the wikipedia article 1st Battalion 14th Marines, you'll see it is a reserve artillery unit (well, actually deactivated now, but was a reserve unit). The 14th Regiment is a reserve artillery regiment. The 4th Marine Division is a reserve division. Reserves all the way around. Reserve artillery units up and down the line. And if you were in the military, you know that every unit, no matter how combat oriented, has an administrative component. Even Special Forces groups and Ranger battalions have a headquaters company that includes soldiers whose MOS is an administrative one. His paperwork was transferred to the HQ Battery of a RESERVE unit for custodianship. He was assigned to them for control purposes. I think it's pretty clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyway you look at it, as far as his book "The secret Man" is concerned, it's going to be impossible to prove or disprove anything from it based on this DD-214 anyways. His civilian job IS listed as Intelligence Specialist which could mean many things. The link you posted from global security also shows dates of covert intelligence operations that coincide with Mr. Dux's dates of service.Tommy814 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• • First, his book is not a reliable source for anything except in documenting that he made claims. His book has been questioned by numerous media sources and he's never produced any reasonable evidence for examination. Second, his 214 doesn't list what his civilian occupation is. It list what the civilian equivilant would be. That is there for potential employers to look at the DOT number and compare that description to a potential job. That is not evidence that he is, was or would ever be employed in intelligence. A combat engineer will show a related civilian occupation as a heavy equipment operator even if he never operated a piece of heavy equipment a day in his life outside of military service. Dux was a reservist. He was only on active duty to attend boot camp. He never deployed anywhere (his 214 shows 0 days of foreign service). Never functioned on active duty in ANY MOS because he was never on active duty except for boot camp.

• Oh well, thought I'd take a shot and see what you guys thought about the DD-214. I wasn't insinuating that it was "evidence" I just thought it would be a good place to start. Apparently I'm being accused of knowing Frank Dux and also being accused of sockpuppetry so I guess I'll just stop wasting my time. I thought we were having some constructive conversations about the controversies but I guess if I suggest anything that might support his claims that means I know him or I'm a sock puppet (whatever that means).Tommy814 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've never said you knew (or were) Frank Dux. And I admit I was suspicious that you were simply a re-creation of a previously blocked editor, but I feel like I have discussed everything with you in a reasonable manner and I think I've treated you with the same amount of respect you've shown me. You've conducted yourself well here and I have no issues with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And I have no issues with you. I feel that your feedback has been neutral and constructive. The accusations I was speaking of are from another user, I think you know who I'm speaking of. Like I said before, I'm just trying to take a neutral stance to see if validity can be made to Dux's world records. That's my main goal right now. The Black Dragon Fighting Society acknowledges his records and I know that's not a Dux run website. Maybe that would be worth checking out.Tommy814 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I found a website with a photocopy of the receipt for the trophy and it describes the trophy as containing 4 judo figures and two gold cups. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Trophyreceiptfront.gif. The well known photo of Mr. Dux holding his trophy is a big block of wood with a huge silver bowl. Hmmm, that does seem interesting does it not? And I don't believe Mr. Dux would misspell his own last name lol.Tommy814 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • oh wow, and on what website was this receipt found? Theserialcomma (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I can't remember at this point, just thought the info might be helpful to this article that's all.Tommy814 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• And that has been the problem in this article Tommy. For example, some editors have tried to use copies of documents that are hosted on a website Dux owns. That certainly isn't independent and won't qualify as a reliable source. Give me a few minutes and I can put a photo up on my own site of me wearing 8 Olympic gold medals. No, I've never competed in the Olympics, but I can put the picture up on my own site. Is that proof? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't see the point in linking anything from Dux's own website as that wouldn't be a neutral reference point. I'm just playing the role of trying to help prove some controversies whereas you and other editors are playing devil's advocate which I think is fairly constructive. I'm staying as neutral as possible but would like to see some of the controversial issues verified which I can see has been an ongoing process that may take time.Tommy814 (talk) 09:58, 27 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)

How are you being "attacked"? You just don't seem very neutral and some people have called you out on it. That's not an attack as far as I know.Tommy814 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The problems are the 1) I've been very neutral in this discussion and focused completely on a policy based position and 2) Their complaint of lack of neutrality is based on my political preference of conservatism, which as far as I can see, has absolutely nothing to do with this article. I haven't the faintest clue what Dux's political beliefs are. And yes, it is an attack based on their desire to include negative material in articles based on their personal feelings. Neither have engaged in a policy based explaination of why it should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you and why are you using a single purpose account? Djma12 ^(talk) 03:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• 3 guesses on who. I bet a Checkuser would find this editor shares the IP of other accounts blocked over their behavior in this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Is there a problem with me posting on this topic? By the way there have been some fine edits to this article (i.e. American martial artist). I like that, it seemed to be missing from the title a while back =)Tommy814 (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry on this page

can we do something about the sockpuppets? Theserialcomma (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• A number have been blocked. If and when the lastest become uncivil, they probably will be too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)