Talk:Frank Dux/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)


I take it our sources consist of:

  • a couple of 1980s martial arts magazines articles
  • two incredibly unprofessional websites claiming to be "official Frank Dux" websites
  • the 1996 book published with ReganBooks, apparently not reprinted because it was found by the publisher to be a fraud
  • internet hearsay, especially forum trolls claiming to be Frank Dux[1]

This isn't enough to convince me this character isn't a complete hoax, made up by some prankster at some point around 1980 and somehow perpetuated by the same, or other pranksters. Let alone does this pass WP:BLP. We should turn this page into a section redirect pointing to Schools of Ninjutsu and mention "Dux Ryu" as a notrious example there. I also have doubts whether Dux is "best known" as a martial artist and fight choreographer. Judging from the internet, he is in fact best known as the prototypical 1970s "Ninja" martial arts fraud. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I also do not quite see how Dux can be presented as "controversial" if we have no quotable references even admitting the possibility that he is "for real". According to Keyes (2004),

Like Wayland Clifton, Dux even forged a press account of his exploits. Research on these 'exploits' conducted by Los Angeles Times reporter John Johnson and phony-veteran unmasker B.G. 'Jug' Burkett revealed that Dux had been in the military for only a few months, didn't serve in Southeast Asia, and won no medals. His service record indicates that Dux had been referred for psychiatric evaluation due to 'flights of ideas and exaggerations.'

I do not suppose we can uphold the claim that there is a "controversy" as long as one side of the "controversy "consists of internet trolling alone. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • So let me get your position straight....are you saying that since his claims have no verifiabiliy, there should be no controversy in the fact that he has made unsubstantiated claims? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the book (form a well respected publisher) & and article in the LA times... the book is out of print due to the controversy so not inet only. --Nate1481 09:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
how did I "forget the book"? It is written by "Frank Dux", and as such a primary source establishing the claims under discussion, not any controversy surrounding these claims. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My point was related to you saying "This isn't enough to convince me this character isn't a complete hoax" this is enough to show some one exists (and in my view is notable enough for an article) I was not attempting to imply this showed any level of 'controversy' just the claims & counters see below for my view on how the article could be written. --Nate1481 12:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

obviously, if we say Dux is "controversial within the US martial arts community", this would imply that some people say he is a fraud while others defend him. As it stands, it is Frank Dux vs. the martial arts community. I see no evidence of anyone being on the "pro-Dux" side of the controversy. Consequently, there is no controversy. We can at least say that Frank Dux is an identifiable individual, but only based on the Los Angeles Times article, which reports on research into his military record. Otherwise we wouldn't know whether "Frank Dux" was a pseudonym invented for Bloodsports and used on-and-off by various internet trolls over time. We have the LAT article documenting that Fran Dux exists, did teach "Ninjutsu", and has been debunked as a complete fraud by the research done by Johnson and Burkett, as referenced in the Reynolds (2004) quote above. There does not appear to be room for "controversy" about any of this.

Compare the Ashida Kim article, about a very similar character. The article also claims that Ashida Kim is "a controversial figure in the US MA community", but then completely fails to substantiate the existence of any third party source taking a pro-Ashida-Kim position. We base articles on third party sources. A "controversy" means that some third party sources say this, while other third party sources say that. When third party sources are unanimous that somebody is a fraud, there is no "controversy", regardless of primary sources airing the views of the subject in question. --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should day that Dux wrote a book that was essentially fiction and tried to pass it off as fact, a film was later based on it and both have been shown to be a inaccurate to the point of fraudulent. This is not a view I have any issue with, but I have a feeling we will get comments questioning if such an article can stand under WP:BLP, and a negative article is a lot harder to source than one saying he is dubious. There are plenty of people who support Dux (and Kim), most are students be it directly, or mail order ones, some of which have then built business on what they have be taught. A large part of the reason few have managed to publish it, other than on the internet, is because to editor or journalist looking at it for a newspaper etc. who bothers to dig a little realises that there are gaping holes in the claims and back story. --Nate1481 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We spoke about this earlier (might be archived, I didn't look). I see this as kind of an exception. If Dux was willing to make the claims in a book published by a reputable publisher, I don't see the harm in using his book as a source to show he made the claims. We're not talking about a myspace entry. He put the claims out in the public domain and they've been repeated. Some of those claims were the basis for the LA Times and the Denver paper to do invesitigative work to expose him. Further, we can document third parties calling him "controversial". Some are small magazines, like this one: [2] (which is pro-Dux), in books [3] and newspapers like the LA Times. And of course there is his lawsuit against Soldier of Fortune magazine and against the author of Stolen Valor. So if others recognize the controversy, why shouldn't we? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, fair enough. I just feel that the WP:LEAD should make unambigously clear that all quotable sources we have take it for granted that Dux is a fraud. If you still want to call it a controversy after making this clear, that's fine with me. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a SOCK PUPPET. I am an investigative journalist, however. In doing my research I spoke with Mr. Godwin and Mr. Walsh who offhandedly suggested it might be a good idea to return pages to their former states, long before an article is "corrupted by way of posturing and falsehoods." Facts,replaced by unfounded allegation. Concealment of material fact is not Wikipedia Policy, ethical, and can be interpreted as malice. Particularly, if one takes into account the sources of the allegations being repeated on this page and being held up as credible stood to financially gain and were prosecuted for presenting fabricated evidence, in court proceedings of libel and slander. To delete or obscure overwhelming substantive evidence particularly when a person's livelihood is at stake seems dishonest and worth bringing to the public's attention. Especially, in light of internet bullying being discussed by lawmakers. Wikipedia abuse in their cross hairs. Why I look forward to a response but would not be surprised if this page is deleted or "archived" under the catch all phrase oppressing anyone attempting to tell the truth - sock puppet? I think not...

cc: Mr.Godwin cc: Seattle Times -- (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Well have Mr. Godwin and Mr. Walsh come here and they can discuss this article just like everyone else. BTW, YOU were the one who accused me and serialcomma of being the same person? [4] Even the most cursory look at our edit histories show that is a ridiculous assertion. But you're an investigative journalist, right? Sockpuppet? I think so. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • oh jesus christ, is this sockpuppet back again. someone please file an SPA and let's be done with this. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
p.s. ROFL at this guy claiming mike godwin from the wikipedia foundation said the article should be reverted to before it was "corrupted by way of posturing and falsehoods." Who talks that way? anyone we know? Hint: search the archive for the word 'posturing' for an extra lol effect. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why yes, this 'investigative journalist' does appear to have a very familiar turn of phrase. I suppose it's being optimistic to assume that an 'investigative journalist' will have investigated the past talk page discussions and not need explained all the same previous points we've been through before.
However, if we are to believe this meeting took place, an investigative journalist would have been told by Mr Godwin & Mr Walsh that Wikipedia is not somewhere to publish their research.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If he couldn't "investigate" two very different edit histories, I'm guessing that "investigating" the applicable policies and past discussions of them is probab;y going to be wishful thinking on your part Orbit. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm no investigative journalist, nor am I a ninja, but our 'posturing' friend's IP resolves to seattle, which is where Mr. Dux also lives, according to dux's myspace page. probably just a coincidence, but someone might want to let Mr. Dux know that some fake journalist is making him look really bad on the internet via extremely poor argumentation, and even poorer attempts at deception (well, i guess if mike godwin shows up and admits the IP was telling the truth, I will apologize). Theserialcomma (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deception is the way of the ninja —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • And oddly enough, deception is also the way of sockpuppets. What a coincidence. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You'd think an investigative journalist would know from speaking to Mr. Walsh that she probably wouldn't appreciate being referred to as mister. -- œ 05:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs gutted

It needs completely scrapped and re-written with RELIABLE sources and ONLY reliable sources. No Dux websites, no myspace and youtube links. Not broken links and references to articles than nobody has actually seen outside of a Dux website. I don't give a damn if that only leaves us with 2 paragraphs, that is better than what we currently have. The section about the lawsuits is horrible. It is written with such a POV slant and with the odor of WP:OR that is of no encyclopedic value at this point. It reads like it was cut and pasted from an opinion article, going off on weird tangents about John Kerry, the Klan, terrorism and other such foolishness. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. this article sucks. i support removing every unreferenced/poorly referenced sentence. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed a ton of WP:SPS sources and unreliable ones. Added fact tags. I'll give that a little time. In the mean time, I need to try to find time to wade through the lawsuit info that this article seems to depend heavily on. I also don't like the article from the small NM newspaper. A lot seems to depend on it and there is a WP:V issue there. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Good luck to you. I've given up trying to make any sense of it. Half the problem is that certain editors insist on claiming that existence of a lawsuit, and exhibits in said lawsuits, are evidence of a judgement in Dux's favour. All it proves is Dux has lawyers and money to pay them. What the outcome of the lawsuits were isn't entirely clear, but you get the idea that no-one left court feeling satisfied and the actual truth remains concealed in a impenetrable fog. But as long as it is in there, its not Wikipedia's job to speculate what it is. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then let's skip the details. A sued B. This was the judgement. End of story. Eliminate the speculation, interpretation, original research and synth. Straight facts. If a reliable source didn't say it, then it goes. As it stands, this thing is an embarrassment. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
again, agreed. just delete everything that isn't sourced properly. if the sockpuppets want to come out and cry/argue about jimmy wales conspiracies, "posturing", and ninjas, let them. they will need to bring reliable sources with their claims. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been doing some looking around regarding this mystery article that Dux fanboys point to as "proving" everything. According to them, the LA Times and it's full time investigative reporters totally screwed up their expose on Dux, but somehow The Artesia Daily Press, a small paper in a city of 10K and a county of 51K, managed to do the only investigative article that "confirms" everything Dux said. Nobody can ever find the article from a site not run by Dux. Any way, the author Kathy Kolt isn't even a reporter there. She is a Guest Columnist. This year, the Guest Columnist who managed to beat the pants of the LA Times has done hard hitting pieces like where to buy tickets for the NRA banquet, a piece on local trap shooting, bow hunting, the Hunting Heritage Banquet and the Kiwanis Club. I emailed the editor to see if I can obtain a copy of the piece. I HIGHLY suspect that if it exists and I actually get it, the article will simply say "Dux says X, Y and Z", no confirmation of anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nix the idea of the court documents. They want 4.75 for each name search, let alone actually viewing the documents. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the article is in good shape now. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • LOL.......yep, it's been pretty much gutted. It could stand some expansion, but reliable sources aren't terribly abundant for this guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mr. Dux would not be much of a "Secret Man" if there were witnesses to his great deeds of courage and valour. Hence, I doubt that we shall ever get verified sources. (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Train wreck

This sentence is a complete train wreck. Whoever wrote it should reword it.

"Various international trade magazines, including a lengthy investigation by Rainbow Publications staff, as warranted by Black Belt Magazine that states while it does not act as a source of verification it can and does regarding Frank Dux Kumite accomplishments, in its Nov. 1980 issue, when the event is occurring [10][dubious – discuss] as does various professional trade organizations including the Black Dragon Fighting Society and its affiliates that conduct these events." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. There's a regular contributor to this article who puts sentences like this in, convoluted and full of double speak, so that they appear to say, and verify, a whole lot more than they actually do. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Real Bloodsport

I just want to say to all of you who have worked to make this a good, fair, neutral, verified article - bless you! It is a difficult task writing an article when the subject has so many activities that have hard-to-find or no source documentation. At the same time, you didn't give up and those of you who have worked to bring cites into the discussion, well done. You are the champions of the digital kumite!Greenshinobi (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi

Thank you! I'm glad there are people that appreciate the effort as opposed to arguing with users. Kudos Greenshinobi!Phoenix2923 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Who do you think he meant Phoenix? Who got the article into the state it is in? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the way you like to nit pick and scrutinize everything in a semi-hostile fashion, I'm surprised Frank Dux even HAS a Wikipedia page. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Just pointing that obvious. While you use your "supportive" response to slide another shot in at me, you ignore the fact that I am one of the ones who was involved in the clean-up. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our communication would improve drastically if you were to remain more neutral. You do seem to be leaning on the side of discrediting Frank Dux. I'm completely neutral when it comes to Mr. Dux as I don't know him. However the documents, which I did pay for, have compelling evidence that does support his claims and the claims of others that acknowledge his claims. These documents could be very beneficial to the page maybe as another article. I hate arguing with people via keyboards and computer monitors. I just want to be constructive, so please, if you have a dispute with something I post, I would appreciate you telling me in a more respectful manner as I have a tendency to defend myself when people suggest I have some sort of ulterior motive for posting on this page. There are a lot of pages I have been tempted to post on, but this isn't a very good first impression for me. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I think our communication would drastically improve if you were to stop playing the victim, realize that just because I've been the only one entertaining your posts doesn't mean that it was only me that removed the old stuff and that it isn't just my say so keeping you from using those pages you have and own up to the fact that you went waaaay overboard with your name calling. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is the 3rd time that I'm apologizing for going overboard. Let's stick in one discussion so we stop crossing these messages. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing [User:Phoenix2923|Phoenix2923]said struck me. That he/she PAID for articles (assuming paying to get copies from sources or libraries, etc..) I mean, some people are paying out of pocket to write for Wiki, where NONE of us get paid. Its frustrating. On other topics, I've shelled out $50 (big money to me) to pay for copies of articles and then have trolls yell at me. It's crap. I'm late to the game on the debate between [User:Phoenix2923|Phoenix2923] and [User:Phoenix2923|Phoenix2923]. So please don't construe my comments as taking sides other than blessings to someone who pays out of pocket for a volunteer encyclopedia.Greenshinobi (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • What someone is willing to pay in order to promote their POV isn't really a measure of the validity or relevence, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Website Confusion

Need help... I just approved a new website by an anonymous IP for Frank Dux's official site. (They also changed his name to Frank W. Dux.) It SEEMS legit... but googling for sites about Frank Dux I have too many to list. Can someone double check please? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Doesn't give any references to the webmaster or host so it's hard to tell. It does look like an official site though. Phoenix2923 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Explain this logic to me here. How are we listing it as "the official website" and then saying we don't know who runs it? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, it shouldn't be listed as official if we don't know who made it or runs it. Especially if it came from an anonymous IP. If it WAS official, the host wouldn't remain anonymous. That seems odd.Phoenix2923 (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The registered owner is Sky Benson of Seattle. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So does that make it official?Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem... it neither confirms nor denies the "official" status of the site. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content

What is the problem here? i am the real Frank Dux. Sky Benson is a longtime student, actual eyewitness, and is owner of website Directing people to and repeating the slander and libel of me is unlawful. I notice an emphasis is based upon the illussion of dispute when the so called sources were exposed in court proceedings as making unsubstantiated allegations and presenting fraudulent evidence as legitimiate when overtly on its face was false. Just as my Frank Dux Kills The Bull series on YouTube reveals as do journalists, critical of the way I am being unfairly treated. Why is the mention of the court case of libel and slander of me deleted and being prevented from being reposted? Why is is it online court records that establish my bona fides are not allowed to be cited, as well ? Particualrly, when they surpass wikipedia policy and rules. Who is Nightshift? Or should i ask what organization are you an agent of if any? What makes you such an expert with regards to me? I would really appreciate someone interested in posting verified fact and NOT allegation isn assisting me in correcting the managed misperception of me, demonstrative of ACTUAL MALICEThe REAL Dux (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The "official website" looks legit enough to me, and I wouldn't dispute it at this time. Other claims have been rejected as lacking WP:Reliable sources. Please read that policy carefully. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Who am I? Who are you? Just because you say "I'm Frank Dux", that makes it so? And if I did decide to create an account to make that claim, I'd actually put forth the effort to write my responses coherently, without a bunch of ranting and allegations. Read WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:V, then see if you have the same questions. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, if you're going to start with paranoid allegations towards me (like the ridiculous "what organization are you an agent of" silliness), then at least act attentive enough to spell my name right. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First off let me respond by stating I am the person you are seemingly defaming and oppressing. To declare otherwise would constitute grounds for identity theft, a crime. If you doubt it then file a complaint. Feel free to email me. I am within my rights to ask what organization do you belong to when your acts indicate Escape Orbit and you are acting in tandem intent on tortously interfering with my business opportunity by preventing correct information from being posted. I witness this page is being used to lend credibility to the false claims of Google adsense site bullshido. This page is being used to compare me to my business competitors wikipedia pages providing them an unfair business advantage. In the past verified facts supported by court exhibits that were available online as part of legal proceedings in a case of libel and slander were deleted and not permitted, when they exceed Wikipedia Rules & Policy. In comparison the sources you cite as having disputed my claims were named defendants and evidence exposed as fraudulennt in libel and slander litigation. You have engaged in concealing the lawsuit (also deleted from mention). The existence of my world records and the lawsuit needs to go back up on the page. In the past when the truth is obviously being suppressed the discussion page ends up archived. So the question what organization do you belong to is reasonable. It is a starting point to detrermine why you possibly bare me actual malice.****** The REAL Dux (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, first of all, I haven't defamed anyone. If you believe that is the case, have your attorney contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Second, not declaring your identity is not identity theft in any jurisdiction. Third, I don't even know what Escape Orbit is but, more importantly, I don't care who they are. Lastly, if you're going to use big words "Frank", please learn to use the right ones and learn how to spell them. Drop the blustering, conspiracy theories and legal bullshit, then maybe something can get accomplished here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me I believe you are incorrect as defamation is holding anyone up to ridicule, so other will shun them as you do with me. This has been achieved by arbitrarily disallowing any credible source to be cited while speculation is framed in words "disputed" that has a legal connotation. The article lends importance to unsubstantiated allegation, infering doubt, presenting discredited sources as credible. Violating Wikipedias own rules as unreliable sources are not permitted. Which may explain why it has come to pass my slander and libel litigation with Soldier of Fortune magazine that appeared ended up deleted so that it could be used as a source and conceal the allegations of dispute were baselesss. How about addressing how available online exhibits from Los Angeles Superior Court are not being allowed to be used when they exceed wikipedia standards? What difference does it make if the information appears on one of my students websites as long as they didn't originate the information but are providing a platform for others to view the evidence?

How about this there exists a recent article by Gordon Richusa, F'rank Dux: greater Than Fiction,'' Martial Art Enetrtainment Magazine. The online magazine article states what court exhibits that go without mention corroborate, will you post these facts if accuracy and truth are your true intentions, as a passage reads:

"The verified facts are Frank Dux is an adjunct faculty member of Criminal Justice Institute, St. Petersburg , Florida ; inducted as “Knight Chevalier” by Police Hall of Fame, National Association of Chiefs of Police of Miami, Florida. He is the only foreign national to teach at Mexico City Police Academy and has numerous awards for his involvement in Multi-Jurisdictional Counter Drug Agency Task Force Investigations and training by HIDTA & NEOA. He is identified as a source contributor to the Special Warfare manuals of elite units around the globe. Including, the US Navy SEAL CFC manual (k-431-0097), bERKYT Ukrainian Anti-Terror unit, etc. This is what Black Belt magazine had meant back in 1980 as Dux “having military experience of a unique nature.” Kathy Kolt, Artesia Daily, July 18, 2008 wrote: “FRANK DUX, he’s the stuff movies are made of, but the movie was never made of the real hero.”

Senate Intelligence Oversight & Iran Contra Congressional Hearing witness - Iran-Contra Insider and its paymaster, Lt. Commander, Alexander Martin, USN (ret.), under penalty of perjury, identified Mr. Frank W. Dux as a covert operative who is responsible for having briefed him with regard to Operation Cordoba Harbor, declaring: “During my intelligence career, I have met with and been introduced to many covert operatives, whose existence has often been officially denied by the government agencies that these parties have been associated with. One of these covert operatives was one Frank Dux”

Major General, Anatoly Korneinko , USSR , acting as an official spokesperson of Ukrainian (Former Soviet) Military Authority declared: “In early 1983 I received an order from the military command to provide necessary assistance and cooperation to a joint military group known then as Officer Duchovny’s Group. This group was to carry out military operations in Soviet territories under my command. The leader of the group, “Officer Duchovny” was Frank Dux …Frank Dux was dubbed the Hunter. He was in the Soviet Union for just a few weeks when our intelligence received information about the exceptional talents of the Hunter and his unique ability to investigate extremely dangerous and complicated matters.”

Admiral Horton Smith, USN is the oldest serving Fleet Officer in the US Navy whose classmate and personal friend includes former Directors and Deputy Directors of Central Intelligence Agency. In a soon to be released documentary Admiral Smith not only corroborates Lt. Commander Alexander Martin USN (ret) sworn testimony that Frank Dux is a covert agent whose identity was being officially denied by his own government but also corroborates US Army Custodian of Records Sean Dalton, when declaring under penalty of perjury Frank Dux military records as they appear under FOIA, are unreliable. Pointing out while the documents are sanitized in order to protect Frank Dux they became a double-edged sword as it makes him vulnerable to speculation and gossip of skeptics.

Not that it really matters to Frank Dux since as he points out there exists no controversy with regards to his bona fides within the inner circles of today’s elite professional martial artists. Evidenced by the fact Frank Dux is the keynote speaker at the Federal Law enforcement Officers Association 2010 Conference, held in Las Vegas." see: REAL Dux (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Since you've decided to make a legal threat, which is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy, I won't bother responding to your regurgitation of all these items that fail WP:RS and WP:V. I'd love to see you try to push this lawsuit silliness. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Diffusing guilt by making a blaatantly false allegation is juvenile. If it was my intent to sue you i would post the complaint here for all to see. I made no threat so why suggest this occured. However, I did challenge your ethics and ability to remain objective In light of the correct information being prevented from appearing on the page. In light of the substantiated facts will you now correct this article as in post the corect and material information and if no, why not, if you dont bare me malice as you portray is the case? Here is some more info for you to post. Shinja University Newsletter and the Freedom Fest Press Release reads:

Rear Admiral Horton Smith and others appear in highly anticipated and soon to be released Shoreline Entertainment documentary entitled: Put Up Your Dux, The documentary examines Martial Art Hall of Fame Living Legend, Godfather of the MMA and inspiration for the motion picture Bloodpsort, Frank Dux. The film is set to debut in the Caan Film festival. Admiral Smith and several highly decorated officials who appeared on camera corroborate Frank Dux was a covert operative of the highest caliber. Dux's expertise earned his acknowledgement as a contributor to US Navy SEAL manual (k431-0097).

On March 24th, 2011 in a Military Honors Ceremony held in Brookside Baptist Church, Nicholasville, Kentucky Frank Dux's covert service was OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED and he was presented with Citations of Valor for his courageous actions, aknowleged by both US House of Representitives and Kentucky House of Representitives.

Frank Dux was presented from Commonwealth State of Kentucky, both the titles of Kentucky Admiral and Colonel. Nicholasville Mayor, Russ Meyer presented Frank Dux a Key to the City.

The presenters were:

Jessamine County Circuit Court Clerk, Doug Fain; State Senator Tom Buford, Nicholasville Mayor Russ Meyer, Chaplain Colonel DeWayne Brewer, State Representative Bob Damron, Pastor Dan Barnes, Nicholasville Police Chief Barry Waldrop, Col. Mark Needham, Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, Jessamine County Judge Executive William Neal Cassity, Jessamine County Attorney Brian T. Goettl, Jessamine County Clerk, Eva McDaniel, Robert Cooper, Jessie Beazley, and the founder of The Freedom Fund Fest, Douglas DayThe REAL Dux (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • You must think we are idiots "Frank". You said "I request to prevent me from being further damaged Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable."[5]. That is a legal threat and you trying to deny it just makes you look like a buffoon and a liar. (And PLEASE learn to use the right words! Stop talking about what you think I "bare" towards you. I'm not gay, I'm not baring anything towards you. Learn that there word is bear and keep me out of your fantasies. Sheesh. Once is a typo or a minor error. Repeatedly doing it just proves you are ignorant of the correct use.) You HAVE made a legal threat. You can try to deny it again, but it is in the page history now. If I were you, I'd just fess up to making the threat and apologize for trying to lie my way out of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift you are one seriously ignorant individual lol.Phoenix2923 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • If you had any credibility, I might actually care what your opinion was. But you don't have any. You should also note that your hero got blocked for making the legal threat that he claimed he didn't make. He apparently can't keep his story straight. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

People like you shouldn't even be editing this page or this discussion section. This article could use some editors with common sense at the very least. You, my friend, lack that to a horrific degree. Phoenix2923 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep up with the personal attacks my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep talkin Niteshift. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Requesting {{hat}} between here and the collapsed section, this isn't productive, but I'm already involved. Monty845 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some other outlet thats verified to belong to Frank Dux (a social network page, a twitter account, etc.) that states this is the official website? That would be the easiest way to confirm the legitimacy. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem that we've run into most times in this article is that everything comes from primary sources or sources that the subject is affiliated with. I'm ok with using a primary source for something non-contentious, just be aware this has been an ongoing problem.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've read. :) I'm not suggesting a primary source be used for everything, but WP:RS states social network accounts that have been verified as belonging to the subject can be used for a few things. I think this would best be applied to determine if Dux has recently specified this website as his official site. (And only for that.) Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly be open to it if someone actually found a verified one. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked for his name on Twitter. There seem to be several accounts, Real_Frank_Dux, FrankDux4, FrankWDux, but none of them are verified. There also appear to be numerous Facbeook pages, again none that appear verified (such as The only thing I could find were several accounts and pages, which could be made by anyone. I don't think MySpace (his is mentioned in an above thread) has any verification process. Looks like there's no way to verify the website as official until we can verify who its coming from. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


There is nothing dubious about a quote from Black Belt magazine stating that it verifies Frank Dux won the Kumite championship (that is the basis of the film Bloodsport). A fact corroborated and also verified by the IFAA organization that conducted it that is officially recognized by a foreign government that also substantiates Frank Dux achievements as real. There is no need to require a citation is needed and then remove facts as stated occurred with the Artesia Daily article, stating:"In 1996, he was with HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area at the Criminal Justice Center. He designed strategies and tactics and evaluated their existing training program. In 1997, he received awards from the Multi Jurisdictional Counter Drug Task Force for drug task investigations. He also was sponsored by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE to teach NEOA, Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association, covert activities. He is an adjunct faculty member of the Saint Petersburg, Florida Criminal Justice Institute. He was knighted in the ORDER OF SAINT MICHAEL, KNIGHT CHEVALIER, by the Police Hall of Fame, MIAMI, FLORIDA. He was a source contributor to the US NAVY SEAL SPECWAR MANUAL. Impressive to me is the fact that he was a recipient of the CALIFORNIA YOUTH KARATE DRAGON AWARD for his humanitarian work with disadvantaged and disabled children. He also put IDENTIFIED AT RISK KIDS in a program for free. While teaching Martial Arts, he gave scholarships to needy kids on the one condition that they had to raise and maintain their GPA."

Posturing to force views on others by disallowing citation of court documents, magazines and newspapers demonstrates this Wiki article is nothing more than pure Anti-Dux propaganda. The unbalanced reporting going on here is in need of serious examination. It supports the allegation this site is administered in accordance to protecting Wiki founder Jimmy Wales commercial financial interests. Violating the law that grants Wiki's non-profit status.

The evidence of this is overwhelming. All one needs to do is examine the arbitrary dismissal of factual evidence and lending credence to sources that's allegations were shown through court proceedings to be baseless. Using unreliable sources such as those who commit Libel and Slander violates Wiki policy and rules. Namely, The Los Angeles Times, Stolen Valor, and SOF magazine, etc. Sneaking in a quote from Keyes who only cites the allegation and not the conclusion taken out the same record Keyes cites betrays he is an unreliable source, as well. The medical record exonerates Dux. Presenting unreliable sources while removing any mention of those shown to be reliable demonstrates malfeasance and actual malice. In the past, this actual malice includes archiving this discussion page by which to control the information and status qou. Conceal the illicit posturing going on here. The allegations Dux claims were disputed without citing the fact these allegations were found to be baseless. That the LA Times in its original printed form substantiates it is an editorial, where formerly allowed as a source proves the allegations made by the LA Times repeated by the other sources being cited is based on fabricated evidence. This should not go unmentioned. Not only does it not go unmentioned. Any attempt to show this is thwarted through posturing.-- (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Except that the so-called article in the tiny NM newspaper, written by one of their part time employees, was basically a re-print of his claims, not something independantly verified. OR has no place here, so it doesn't matter that I've called the Criminal Justice Institute in St. Petersburg, where I know people, and they say he's never been an instructor or that The National Police Museum and Hall of Fame, which hasn't been in Miami for years, doesn't even grant that honorary title. What does matter is your legal threats. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • pro tip for the frank dux sockpuppet: every time you use the word posturing, we know it's you. (why do i bother?)
Yes, we have to admit it: Jimbo Wales' financial interests rely heavily on Frank Dux' Kumite achievements. You make the best sense ever, why won't we listen?--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Lol! ... On another note.. thank god for pending changes.. If any BLP needed it it's certainly this one! -- œ 05:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, so I just got hired by the Chihuahua State Police as a weapons and ordinance instructor for their pilot anti-cartel platoon. Now that I'm getting settled in and I decided to contact my counter-part at the Mexico City Police Departyment (Policial Distrito Federal) to help me track down any mention of Frank Dux as an instructor or guest. I was able to get ahold of the archives department and guess what, no mention of Frank Dux or any change in hand-to-hand combat instruction being made since 1986. The current curriculum closely mirrors the LINE system from the U.S. Marine Corps. In some of his articles, he's claimed to have instructed this police department in his methods. So, how do I site myself or the email I received from the archives chief. My position has the equivalent rank that that of a unit commander/lieutenant in U.S. police forces, and as such I could do a press release that can then be cited and quoted. I find that inappropriate and I was hoping you guys could give me some feedback. P.S. I was a U.S. Marine for 6 years and I'm a Mexican citizen, hence my current job. Thanks guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm kind of confused. Before we even start talking about sources, what exactly are you talking about adding or deleting?Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A quote from an administrator in the Police department where he claims that he never had anything to do with that department. In some Dux articles and some Dux related websites, the claim is that he instructed the Mexico City Police Department in Dux FASST. City records show that that is a fabrication and I'd like to add that as an example.

"The accuracy of many of Dux's personal claims have been disputed, including his martial arts background, fighting in the "Kumite", and prior military service. An example of this is Miguel Eduardo Villa Montez, director of archives and public relations for the Federal District Police of Mexico City. Mr Villa Montez stated in an official Mexican government communication with Luis Carlos Zapata Medina, a weapons and tactics instructor with the Chihuahua State Police, that Dux FASST has never been taught to the FDP of Mexico City or that Frank Dux ever had anything to do with that police department"

Since this communication is a matter of public record, I'd like to use it as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Our first issue is going to be WP:V. Where do we find this? Then we really need to address WP:UNDUE. Let me say that I have no doubt that Dux has been less than forthright in a lot of what he says, but is this particular claim worth specifically refuting? Much of his claim to fame is the alleged Kumite bouts, so refuting that would be pretty logical. Training a specific agency however isn't that big of a deal. If that claim (which isn't even mentioned in this article) was removed from his claimed resume, would he suddenly be less notable? I'd submit that he wouldn't be, making this a pretty minor claim. Addressing/refuting a claim that minor might look like we are targeting him. I;m open to discussion though. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, no need to refute things that aren't mentioned here. Especially if it would require such an unconventional citation. Bringing this (likely) lie up like this would actually give it more of a spotlight and be counterproductive to your apparent purpose. Best to just not mention Dux's claim at all, like all other unverifiable bullshit Wikipedia doesn't publish. If you have a problem with another site or magazine's info, better to bring it up with them. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. Part of the reason I wanted to bring this up is because besides the trophy store claim, very few things can be cited properly. In this case, this is one occasion where you can go back and have a solid source that can´t be refuted. Minor claim. Might be irrelevant, but at least its solid & can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as verifiability goes, we've just got some guy (with various IP addresses) telling us about an e-mail he allegedly received from another guy we don't know. I'm not saying you're lying, but would we know if you were? I could just as easily say the real Tong Po just phoned to let me know Kumite 2012 is starting this week. Or that I am Tong Po! A press release would be better, or a mention on an official police website. Or tell a reporter and wait till they report something. But, as I've said, it doesn't seem worth the trouble. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
And yes, I just remembered Tong Po was in Kickboxer, not Bloodsport. But stil... InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


i notice nothing has been said about the filmwork Dux has done. IMDB has him listed as "miscellaneous crew" for Only the Strong, Lionheart, and Bloodsport. I own Only The Strong and Bloodsport, and in the credits it lists him as a fight choreographer. He also has a documentary coming out where Sheldon Lettich was interviewed and talked Dux's involvement in the films. And of course, these can be verified by just watching the movies.

IMDB also has him listed with various minor roles and cameos: Only The Strong (Welder), Get The Terrorists (Brock Towers) [never heard of this film before IMDB], Little Shop of Horrors (Patient #2), The Last Days of Patton (American Correspondent), Murrow (R&D Director), and Highlander (Old Man in Car), and Put up your Dux (as Himself).

Since I am his student, I didn't want to do the edit myself, though all of this is verifiable. That and I dont really know how to properly do a filmography section.

Any takers?

-Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

I've skimmed through the archives and can't see where consensus was established that this is an unreliable source. Could you please elaborate or clarify, Niteshift (or others)? I've also brought this up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It seems fine to me, reliability-wise, and presents a counterpoint to the claims of bullshit currently in the article. Personally, I think Dux's story is mostly fabricated, but that's not important. What's important is giving both sides of the controversy, and letting readers decide who's lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Since you opened the topic as RSN too, I'll save time and respond there. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nov 2012 frank dux training in n.mexico police department

Im really worried about people who dont do there homework.they take one source and swore by it.i would like to learn the art from frank w. name is greg arnold from bakersfield, do i find out.i know he is 67 yrs old.but does he train .call me at 1 661 448 7138 anytime day or night.thanks greg a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Instead of worry about people allegedly not doing "there" (sic) homework, perhaps some homework of your own, like reading the reliable source and verifiability policies, would be in order.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)