Talk:Frank Dux/Archive 2

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: 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." . 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: . 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) — 76.22.87.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.
 * 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".

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)


 * If what you say is true (that Stolen Valor, SOF, and the LA times are unreliable sources) then why are they used as editing references to the article? Also (Frank Dux v. Jean Claude Van Damme, U.S., SC 046395) is used as a reference source to allege unsubstantiated claims made by Frank Dux. I don't see anything in any policies which allows a source to be used to discredit an individual but does not allow the same source to be used to lend credence to the same claims.Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (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) — 76.22.87.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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) — Tommy814 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Alliance & USA Martial Art Hall of Fame founded by Robert Trias & Dr. Jim Thomas as well as MASA (Martial Arts Authority of South Africa), SASC&OC (South Africa Sports Council & Olympic Council) MA & GCSA (Martial Arts & Games Committee of South Africa) and IFAA (International Fighting Art Association) verify and certify Frank Dux has had 329 professional fights and 16 world records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy814 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the International Fighting Arts Assoc. does, Dux is part of it. Why on earth would either South African one certify it? Most of his fights were elsewhere. USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame is also affiliated with Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But why would all these martial arts institutions waste their time? There seems to be many organizations that certify and verify his records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.68.196 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of these "institutions" are dubious to begin with. One guy starts a "hall of fame", inducts some names and claims it's legit. Another one does the same. Over and over. What does it take to create a "hall of fame" or "association" of this or that? Nothing. I fictious name registration, a PO Box and a printer. It's even more dubious when Dux is involved with the "board" or whatever to use them as any kind of reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article pertaining to schools of ninjitsu, validity disputes cite Frank Dux vs. Jean Claude Van Damme as a source that links back to the LA county court records which is exactly the same place the documents I tried to have examined are from. Can somebody please tell me why mine are being ignored while others of the same source are being actively used and cited in reference? Phoenix2923 (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, whether or not people are disputing his claims of his martial arts records, I think they should at least be added to this article. There are more sources supporting him than disputing him so it should still be included somewhere. That's what Frank Dux is known for and people looking up this article will probably expect to at least see a notation of the records. There isn't proof that he did it but there also is no proof that he didn't. The sources disputing his claims don't have a firm basis to dispute the claims, and he IS supported by many well known martial arts associations and websites. Even if we need to add it to the controversy section, the records should at least be acknowledged. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. His martial arts records claims are a notable aspect of his biography, whether or not they are true, it's what he's known for. The article doesn't need to validate them, it can state something like "... but these records remain unconfirmed" or whatever. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the question is what relable source you get it from. His bio isn't going to fly. Websites of organizations he is affiliated with (ie, on the board of) isn't going to fly. The source needs to be both neutral and reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But the point is, there are more websites validating his claims than there are disputing them. Just because he belongs to an organization that supports him doesn't make the source any less reliable. That's like saying LaDanian Tomlinson doesn't deserve the single season rushing TD record because he belongs to the NFL. Frank Dux belongs to many, many organizations and yes they all support him. Just because he is a member shouldn't make the source any less reliable. He doesn't run the sites so the organizations themselves are vouching for him. As far as I can tell there are only 2 sources disputing his claims: LA Times and Soldier of Fortune. My last count of organizations supporting him was over a dozen. We don't need to acknowledge them as fact, but they should be acknowledged nonetheless. There is more support than dispute regarding his records. Phoenix2923 (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, ru.wikipedia.org already has them up, so why are the Americans falling behind? =) Phoenix2923 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Phoenix, the point isn't that more validate his claims. That is totally contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice. (See: WP:BIGNUMBER). If blog repeat a rumor about the president being in Hungary today and the White House website says he is in Maryland, guess which site is going to be given more weight? Sites that Dux has control over are primary sites. This is ESPECIALLY true with bios. Any bio, not just Dux. While a primary site is fine if we are talking about Hasbro's 2011 line of toys, it isn't fine for biographies. Dux stands to gain from a good wikipedia article, therefore, primary sources should be minimal, if at all. And if you control sites, you will usually make sure they say good things about you. The LA Times or SoF have established reputations, have been accepted over and over as reliable sources and won't gain anything by their inclusion. As for the Russian language site, it's not about being behind or ahead. There are articles on both sites that were nominated for and deleted on the other. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is, that's what Frank Dux is best known for. Adding the records to the article isn't validating anything that his fans or whoever else already know about. The article can state, as OE said, that the records remain unconfirmed. We don't know that Dux has control over ANY site. Also, if the man is lying, he has duped everybody including the Navy SEALs for over 30 years now. There has to be some truth to some of his claims. Phoenix2923 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing what I said. This isn't even a question of what is or is not true. This is a question of the Wikipedia requirement that contentious material be verifiably sourced by reliable sources. That is an absolute. It doesn't matter what he is or isn't most famous for. As for the SEAL end of it.....contributing to a manual at one point has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he ever fought in any competition. They are totally separate issues. Many people contribute to many different military manuals. That does not mean that very claim they've made is true, nor does it have anything to do with matters outside of what is in the manual. As an illustration (it's an illustration, so didn't take it as an allegation): Say John Doe was an good shooter, trained as a sniper and later contributed to a maunal on sniping. For the sake of the illustration, let's say that Doe was never used by the military as a sniper in an actual event. Now, 10 years later, Doe, who actually was trained as a sniper and actually did contribute to a manual, writes a book claiming that he was secretly used as a CIA assassin, killed 35 people and holds 5 records for longest shot, shot in the highest wind etc. Does the fact that Doe contributed to that manual many years ago have any bearing on his unverifiable claims of records set and people shot? As for my piece of OR, elite military units habitually learn different things (shooting, CQB etc) from a wide variety of civilian run schools. Their attendence at them is not an endorsement of the school or what it teaches. They simply try all avenues and see what they can pick up. Maybe out of a week at Gunsite, a SEAL may pick up only 2 tips he feels relevant, but just one of those tips may come in handy some day. Back to the original point: WP:RS and WP:V are not suggestions, they are requirements, especially important when WP:BLP is applied to contentious material. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been over the policies and I am aware of what they say. However, citing his records and stating that they are disputed is not against any policies here. And I would love to learn of these civilian run schools that train today's elite military forces lol. I was in one of those elite forces and my training was never run by civilians. Anyway, he is known for the records and having them cited on this article with a disclaimer that they are unofficial is not against the policies. His world record bulletproof glass break was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, yet one person (just like in a video comment section) yells fake and all of a sudden it won't work in Dux's article. The editors here just need to use some common sense with this article. Phoenix2923 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, by not agreeing with you equates to a lack of common sense? Ok, whatever. Let's try this in order. What reliable, third party source do you intend to use? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, you're the one taking the position that Dux's claims are bogus, so I'm sure it can't be hard for you to find a reliable source stating that Dux's record claims are unconfirmed, and I do assume good faith that you are here to improve and expand the article, rather than simply refute whatever position others take. And that is simply all I and Phoenix2923 are proposing, that the article mention that Dux has claims of unconfirmed records. Now, I haven't read the LA Times or SoF articles, but wouldn't even those two make at least some mention of Dux's records claims? -- &oelig; &trade; 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not taking the position that they are bogus. I am taking the position that no reliable, third party source has made the claims but that reliable third party source have disputed claims that Dux has made through his book and through the unreliable sources that he is affiliated with. There is a huge difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so those reliable third party sources you just referred to, do they also dispute specifically, his claims to records? Can you not use these sources (neutrally!) to verify that Dux claims to hold these records although they are unconfirmed? Can you not also use Dux's own book as a primary source simply to state that he's made these claims which he's so known for? -- &oelig; &trade; 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't necessarily make them with the specificity Phoenix is looking for. But, tell you what, if you want to quote either of those reliable sources, using what claims are actually written in there, I won't complain. That would meet WP:V and WP:RS. But I think you'll find that what Phoenix (and others in the past) are wanting put in and what is actually covered in the RS's is very different.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was trying to say below.Phoenix2923 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are also taking a non-neutral position again and again. Nothing you said explains why OE's suggestion for putting the records in the article, followed by these records are disputed by a newspaper and a militia magazine, won't be accepted. Did Dux make those claims? Says who? Well if it's a 3rd party RS then why can't it be included?Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's actually some controversy concerning the claims from those two publications. The LA Times said Dux is bogus because of a trophy receipt, claiming he purchased the trophy. The trophy on the receipt isn't even close to the trophy he was holding 3 years before the receipt was even made. As for SoF, the owner or editor or whatever he is, Robert Brown, was in competition with Frank Dux over a television contract with Jerry Bruckheimer when the article was published. Subsequently, Brown got the contract. So honestly the disputes are just as unreliable. I see the support claims as a more reliable source as these people who run the organization have been in martial arts their entire lives and can probably spot a phony from a mile away. If the IFAA and the Black Dragon Fighting Society support Dux and you only have two really lame disputes, it kind of lends credence in Dux's favor. Phoenix2923 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have read RS, but you missed some key parts. It doesn't matter if you think the LA Times report is lame or that you think SoF had some ulterior motive. They are reliable sources. They have been accepted as reliable sources by the community. This article doesn't say that they are right, the article reports what reliable, third party sources have said. The IFAA and the Black Dragon Fighting Society have not been accepted as reliable sources. Reporting what they said, using them as a source for it, is counter to the policies I've pointed out to you. Further, Dux's involvement with them brings a conflict of interest into the sources. While you say they are more reliable, you forget that their reputation would be damaged by not defending Dux reputation. Dux is a "founding member". It is worth noting that 2 other figures from them, Count Dante and Ashida Kim have also made very questionable claims. In fact, Ashida Kim's wikipedia article was deleted, in part, because of a lack of verifiable, reliable third party sources. In the end, you're trying to add back info that was removed by consensus with nothing more than your personal opinion that you think those sources are more reliable. Isn't it odd that the only places that "verify" this info have Dux fingerprints all over them?Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I placed a notice at the Martial Arts project asking for project members to give their input on the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First I don't think that the LA Times article is "lame", the reason I gave above (I'm assuming you missed it) states that they had nothing to dispute. Second, neither did SoF. These things that I have stated can be Googled. Should I refer you to lmgtfy.com? It doesn't take much research to come to the conclusion that the disputes hold as much water as me telling you I flew to the moon last summer. I'm not saying that proves anything Dux has stated, but if you want to cite a "reliable source", then make sure that source has their facts straight. Niteshift36, you keep harping on "reliable sources" and "neutral POV", but I have yet to see you abide by either. Since we first began this conversation you have taken anything BUT a neutral stance on this article. Let's have some other editors go over this so we can "EXPAND" the article instead of bicker like old ladies over moot points. Phoenix2923 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Phoenix, how are you going to claim you did not summarize the reliable sources as "two really lame disputes"? Clearly, you haven't read WP:RS. RS says NOTHING about "it has to be true". RS says that it has to come from a source with a reputation for reliability. Is it possible that the LA Times was wrong? Sure. But until you can show a reliable source that says they were, they get the default benefit of the doubt. You can make the "you're not being neutral" allegation all you want. The problem is, I can show that I've done a lot of work to bring this article in line with Wikipedia policies (not suggestions). Expansion for the sake of expansion is wrongheaded. This is a BLP article. WP:V and WP:RS must be followed. If something in a BLP is disputed, you must WP:PROVEIT. If you can't, it gets removed. Step one is to have reliable, third party sources. I've asked you for them. You said the IFAA and the Black Dragon. I do not see how they can pas RS, but I invite you to take it to the WP:RSN and see if you can get consensus that those sources would pass. You said you don't want to bicker back and forth. It was me that posted the notice at the Martial Arts project asking for more input. It has been me suggesting to you several times that you go ask for other opinions at the RSN. That sure looks like I am making the effort to get more input. Why don't you take some initiative and go to the RSN? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So RS says nothing about the source needing to be true? And you dismiss every martial arts page that supports Dux? You are contradicting your own standpoint here. You say that the claims themselves aren't true. So in essence what you're saying is any source supporting Dux is bogus because Niteshift36 says so? Please. Let's let some other editors moderate this. You are ruining this discussion with your OPINIONS.Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Scott Wapner from CNBC (probably not RS right?) did a story "From Bloodsport to Blue Chip" supporting Dux's claims. Chasingthefrog.com also makes compelling arguments in his defense and has several sources. But again I'm probably violating some policy with this.Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, the threshold for Wikipedia is verifying that the reliable source reported it, not necessarily that what they reported is 100% true. We can't verify that it is true. We have to rely on their "reputation for accuracy". I am dismissing the sites that are not RS's. If you've got one that hasn't been discussed, show it to me. Again, you're starting to make this personal. I thought you were going to avoid that. You keep complaining about "you're not neutral", yet I am using policy to support my arguments. I haven't seen the CNBC piece. Chasingthefrog was removed from this article a long time ago (and not by me alone). One more time, go to the RSN. I'm not sure why you are so hesitant to do that. You complain about "you're not being neutral" while I am trying to solicit more input. Again, it doesn't matter if I believe Dux or not. This is a policy discussion, not a debate over whether he is telling the truth or full of crap. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I know what CNBC piece you are talking about. A piece allegedly from a network that allegedly confirms all this that only shows up on discussion forums and chasingthefrog. If you could find it on a RS (if it actually exists, I can't even confirm that), that would be one thing, but a claim that "so and so said this" on a non-RS is very different. I can find stuff he did on the UFC etc, but not that piece on Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ryu-sakura-do.com/frank_dux.html http://www.ryu-sakura-do.com/frank_dux_2.html Those pages acknowledge Dux. Nothing on this page says that Dux is a founder or even a member. However it does provide more info that should be added to the article, such as his humanitarian efforts in Asia and Africa. I found these pages informative and they seem to fit.Phoenix2923 (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make anything personal. What OE and I are talking about is referencing the claims. 99% of the people who look up Frank Dux on wikipedia already know about the records anyway. They may not know that they have been disputed. Having the records listed in the controversy section doesn't seem like a bad idea or a violation of the policies I have read over. No I haven't read all of them word for word but I have a decent understanding of the BLP and RS etc. Off the subject, why is Bullshido making attacks against you for supporting Dux?Phoenix2923 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2011 (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. -- &oelig; &trade; 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) — 76.22.87.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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: . 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: . In short, his DD214 doesn't support his claims in any manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also like to state here that the type of separation "Release from initial tour of duty for trining" is an uncommon separation that is not seen on a DD-214, reserves or not. I have spoken with some of my colleagues and they have never heard of that type of separation before. They say and I quote "Sounds like an outside agency scooped them up and got them out of their contract". This is also coming from 3rd party sources that are unaware of the individual listed on the form. There is a lot more that is worth looking into. I'm trying to stay neutral on this topic, but the more I dig the more it seems Frank Dux is telling the truth. For example Robert Brown from SOF was a MACV-SOG team leader. If one was to look around and research the "Studies and Obsevations" group from Vietnam, one might come across Operation Phoenix. Now I am aware that this has no bearing on editing or adding, but I believe that Frank Dux shouldn't be written off so easily as he seems to be by a lot of users here.Phoenix2923 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2011 (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:, 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: . 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 doubt that too many people would consider the Black Dragon Fighting Society to pass WP:RS. If you aren't familiar with their history, you might want to start by reading the article on Count Dante, the society's founder. Like Dux, he was a Marine reservist. Like Dux, he made some claims that were "interesting". While running the society, he also worked as a hair dresser. He changed his name from John Timothy Keehan to Count Juan Raphael Dante, claiming that his parents fled Spain during the Spanish Civil War, changed their names, and obscured their noble heritage in order to effectively hide in America. He took out ads in comic books, billing himself as the "deadliest man alive". He also claimed to know the Dim Mak techniques (didn't Dux claim this too). He was also embroiled in a "dojo war" that involved arrests, attempted arson charges and even a death. You'll read more in the article. But if you look at the actual Dux page on the BDFS website, you'll see this: "World Records according to MA Org. Alliance, Imperial, USA Martial Art Hall of Fame, Bushido Magazine, Action Martial Art Magazine, etc. is well documented, as follows:" They claim others documented it, but make no such claim of verification themselves. We also found in the discussions above the Dux is not listed as a member, or even mentioned at all, in the USA Martial Art Hall of Fame. Just for a counter-view, you might want to read this article: . BTW, are you aware that his book, "The Secret Man" was never printed in a second run because of issues of credibility that came to light for the publisher that made it difficult for them to continue calling the book non-fiction? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 29 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)
 * But some have tried linking to "proof" that was hosted in fasstduxryu.com etc. You can see that in the history of this article.

Let me help you out here so we can get this discussion headed in the right direction. I am affiliated with the United States Military and I would like to let you know that a DD-214 is absolutely useless in this discussion. As many of you are aware, DD-214s such as this one are common among covert operations. The military isn't going to release a DD-214 that lists the individual as a spy or anything else related to that. As far as Frank Dux is concerned, I don't know the man personally but I am aware of his history. I have access to information that may be of use to those disputing the claims of fraud. I can confirm certain things and there are other things that I am not at liberty to discuss. I see evidence presented as fact that has been ignored and references on the main page which have been omitted, such as the court case. I'm not going to waste my time here with a back and forth rhetoric with people who would like nothing more than to play devil's advocate with me. If an administrator would like to acknowledge me then at that point I would be happy to present evidence to help clean this page up and make it accurate as opposed to pure speculation.Phoenix2923 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A brand new user, who never posted before, just happens to have "inside information" that can't be shown? Uh huh. Read WP:V and WP:RS completely. If you still think this evidence that nobody else has been able to produce, passed both of those policies, present it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow that's a warm welcome. Thanks. Now who are you exactly? You aren't an admin so please stop wasting my time.Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you're apparently a member of I Corp. Isn't that convenient?Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you can't tell me what pages to edit on. Second, I don't ned to be an admin to tell you what policies apply and to watch that they are. Third, ignoring the advice about which policies apply and should be consulted would be foolsih if you are actually the new user you claim to be. Lastly, I am not a member of I Corps. I was assigned to them over 20 years ago, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is Frank Dux. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I come on to help tidy up an article that I happen to know a lot about and you jump down my throat. I am well aware of the policies. There is a reference on the main page to a trial which violates WP:BLP am I right? If you people are serious about adding facts to pages on this site then why the sarcastic comments made just now? Who exactly are you and why do you care so much? Phoenix2923 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please drop the drama. Your throat wasn't jumped down. It always raises interest when a new account is formed and within minutes, jumps into a controversial topic, claiming to have inside information. I question that sort of event, as do many other editors. Whether that passage was at odds with BLP is debateable since it doesn't assert anything contentious. It was pretty matter of fact. Either way, I don't care if it's there or not. As for who I am........you already think you know so much about me, it's a funny time to start asking now. As for why I care? This article was full of self-promotional hype, it got cleaned up and I'd like to see that work not go to waste. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Based on the discussion that I read prior to creating this account, it seemed like a lot of pointless argument, name calling etc. I haven't edited anything on Wikipedia before but I am a long time user. I came across this page and was surprised to see it so bare. I understand your reasons for proof and whatnot, however, it seems as though editors/admins are ignoring requests for facts to be added to this page. I can only see two disputes referenced on this page, one from Soldier of Furtune magazine, and an L.A. Times article. Why are these two articles preventing additional information from being added. For example, Frank Dux is versed in much more then ninjutsu, he has trained law enforcement and special forces personnel in a plethora of different disciplines. If the man was a fraud, why would he be called upon by the United States military to train special forces units? You would certainly assume that the government would screen its instructors. So just let me know now before I waste any more of my time.... is this just going to be a pointless back and forth between you and I or are you going to allow me to assist in the construction of this page?Phoenix2923 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Understand that it is not my reasons or requirements for proof. These are wikipedia policies and standards. As Dux is still alive, the BLP standards, which require an even more stringent standard, apply. Everything that has been removed is because of the policies that apply and anything that is added will have to comply with those policies. It's not me saying it, the policy says it. If you have sources, then show them to the community and they will be evaluated based on the existing policies and the consensus of editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding one aspect of the policies: If trial records and court documents aren't permissible for a living person, then why is one cited in the references section of the main page? Phoenix2923 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy doesn't prohibit their use. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". Both times the court case is used as a supplement to a reliable secondary soucrce. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Does testimony from a 3rd party, related to Mr. Dux's involvement with the Russian military and the Iran contra affair count?Phoenix2923 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's too vague to answer. What is the source? Was it discussed by reliable secondary sources? Is the claim contentious? Like I've said all along, your best bet is to simply present the source here, let it get discussed for a few days by more editors and see what happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, like I said I haven't edited or posted before so I have to get used to this interface as far as uploading documents. In the mean time I will try to post some links (not Frank Dux sites) that do support his claims of training US Navy SEALs and working with the Soviet intelligence and military during the cold war. I know there are some disputes to the claims Dux makes about a certain Major General Anatoly Pavlovich Kornienko and the disputes that said Maj. Gen. does not exist. I find this amusing as the article that I reference here comes from the same paper that claims Dux as a fraud. Ironic? http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-05/news/mn-283_1_political-parties/2 Phoenix2923 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

General Kornienko's testimony http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_transcript.JPG and the English translation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kornienko_testimony.JPG Confirmation of the General's service: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kornienko_Service_dates.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix2923 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC) This is just to confirm activities within the USSR in 1983 as per General Anatoly Kornienko who was identified in the L.A. Times article I provided earlier. Phoenix2923 (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Dux's Russian passport/ID http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dux_Russian_ID.jpg Phoenix2923 (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Testimony from John Monte of Shadow Broadcast Services (http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmonte) 1) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte.JPG 2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte2.JPG 3) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte3.JPG 4) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte4.JPG 5) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte5.JPG 6) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte6.JPG 7) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte7.JPG 8) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte8.JPG 9) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte9.JPG 10) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Monte10.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix2923 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start I think. I'm getting kinda tired so I'll provide more info tomorrow after some football. Thanks for your time Niteshift36. Phoenix2923 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the LA Times thing is supposed to show. The guy has the same name, but there is simply nothing in there stating that it's the same guy Dux is talking about or that Dux ever met him. In fact Dux isn't mentioned at all. The only way to connect this to Dux is to make a presumption. Read WP:SYNTH. That pic of what Dux claims is his Russian ID is the same as the pic in his book. That would make it a self authored (by the subject) source. That translated thing........kind of interesting that in 1995, it was still using the name Leningrad District when Leningrad changed it's name back to St. Petersburg in 1991. As for the statements.......first, I hope you are John Monte, or those will probably get deleted. I would be very, very surprised if the Reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN will buy off on those. Because you are supposedly John Monte, the affiant, and you wrote these and uploaded them, my best guess it that the will be considered self-published sources WP:SPS, especially when we are talking about something that is very contentious and disputed by reliable third party sources. The conflict of interest noticeboard WP:COIN may consider the whole thing to be a conflict of interest. Really, most of this is a summary of what you say your investigation found (with the exception of his getting in a fight that you personally witnessed). A big chunk of it relies on CPT that you say found an anonymous guy who confirmed Dux story. That will be a big problem at RSN. Also, the document inserts a lot of your opinion, again, another thing that will be a problem. That's my best guess on how this will shake out if you try to add material using these sources. Maybe you should consider starting a discussion at the RSN to see what the feeling over there is. I could be looking at the documents wrong, but I wouldn't bet money on that. BTW, if you read below, we had another account here that said they were an investigative journalist and acted....well, you can see how he acted. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Obviously you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about concerning the Leningrad Military District in Russia. Here, I'll cite WIKIPEDIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Military_District#Post-Cold_War. Do your homework before you even begin to act like you have a clue what you're talking about concerning anything on this topic. I would prefer to speak to people that have a brain. You're probably some old pedophile with nothing better to do thatn troll on Wikipedia with people who are actually trying to show credible material for edits to this page. Now please, go away and do something more constructive in your life as opposed to having this pointless rhetoric. Thanks though and have a nice day =) Phoenix2923 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are just.......I said one line about how it's "interesting" and you come up with this tirade? You, my friend, are the troll, and won't last here long. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, no I am not John Monte nor do I know him. Those are public record court documents easily obtained from the LA county court records. Only costs a few bucks. If you really care, as you obviously do or you wouldn't troll here 24/7, go pay a few bucks and see for yourself. You have a serious problem guy. There is nothing wrong with nor is it a violation of policy, to post court records and testimony to counter the defamation claims of Dux being a fraud. Why this vendetta to disprove all evidence at all costs? Are you a muslim terrorist the Dux kicked in the face back in the 70's? Please just go away and let an admin review this. Go away. Phoenix2923 (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I ask if you are John Monte? Simple, you listed John Monte as the source when you uploaded those documents. Now you are saying he isn't the source, the LA County courts are the source. Your error is the root of the problem.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I just have to say, you deny all this support, yet Wikipedia reports Gabrielle Giffords dead....um....she's still alive, and how about Abby Sunderland, you guys posted her dead. Lost at sea. Guess what? She's kickin' back in California right now with her family. Where was all this "PROOF" that was required to edit that page and pronounce people dead when they were, in fact, very much alive. I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. Phoenix2923 (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the Gfffords article says. I don't care what the Giffords article says. I have never read or edited the Giffords article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What's with the USACIDC? Just curious. Phoenix2923 (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are even talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Then stop posting unit patches on your user page if you aren't affiliated or even know what USACDIC is. Most Army personnel are familiar with CID. Just sayin. Now again, please go away. You have proven yourself an unreliable source for feedback on this topic. I would like an administrator to review these documents. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked "What's with the CIDC". The question is meaningless. You didn't ask what it was, what I did in it, when I was in it etc. You simply asked "what's with it". Having served in it, I'm very aware of what it it (and if you bothered to look, have edited in the article on it too). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I am aware of the articles that you have edited. Your "expertise" seems to lie with rap groups, white supremacist movies and topics such as the aryan brotherhood. You accuse me of being John Monte because I was able to obtain court documents? Where is the logic in that? You can't even argue properly. You're really reaching here and it's obvious that you have a bias towards this website and are an unreliable source.Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're clearly confused on what Wikipedia is. I'm far from an expert on rappers, for example. What I've done in those articles is apply policies and remove self-promotional material and fancruft. That is much of what has been done with this article too. I didn't "accuse" you of being anyone. I said I hoped you were since you loaded documents claiming Monte was the source. So either you filled out the form when you uploaded them wrong or you lied. I'll let you decide which one. In short, you've proven totally unable to discuss this rationally and I'll let the system do its thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously far from an expert concerning any topic. You claimed in an earlier post 'NIX ON THE COURT DOCUMENTS" because of the price. I obtained the court documents since they were asked for and all of a sudden I'm violating policies? Are you kidding me? I have a completely neutral POV on this topic and was just providing documents that were requested at an earlier date. Please tell me what the REAL problem is here. Phoenix2923 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the cost a long, long time ago. That has nothing to do with the other policies I've cited for you. You've been told the policies. You've been told that your uncivil attitude was not welcome (and ignored that). What is the real problem? People who try to use "proof" that doesn't meet the policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And please explain to me how I have had an "uncivil attitude"? As soon as I posted you took on a sarcastic demeanor with me which suggests that you have a conflict of interest with this article. I say I have some stuff to add and you do the "sure uh huh" thing with me. Where do you get off? All I'm doing is trying to post some info for additions to this page. I wasn't expecting a troll with a nasty attitude to just pop in and start slamming me. Do you know Frank Dux? Do you have some personal vendetta against c=his claims (which are supported by the documents I provided). And as far as uploading improperly, you don't have to be an ass. I told you that I haven't used this site before and maybe I clicked a wrong button when I uploaded, I was just trying to make them available for view. You really need to lose your attitude and check your NPOV (which you obviously lack). You had a bias towards me from my first post until now. Let's have an admin mediate this discussion as you are absolutely incapable of carrying on a mature discussion. 67.160.32.73 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed the warning placed on your user page, by an admin, warning you about your uncivil postings.I do have a bias, a bias towards following the policies. Now you are posting under an IP that is from the Seattle area. And where does Dux live? Hmmmm......Now you are saying you haven't used the site before, but above you said you were a "long time user". As I've stated, I don't know Dux. I've never met Dux. I don't care to meet Dux. I'm being an ass? I look at what you uploaded, ASK if you are Monte, then listen to you go off with some ridiculous rant about how stupid I must be because you entered the info wrong. Who is being an ass sport? As I've said all along, take your evidence to the RSN and see what they have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of snarky unpleasantness going on here. Can we bypass all that and stick to the issues in hand? Phoenix2923, the problem with everything you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is that they cannot be used to "prove" or cite anything. These things need to be published on a reliable source, as currently nothing about them can be verifiable. Maybe they're not what they claim to be. Maybe they've been altered. Maybe they've been selectively edited. How do we know? We do not know where they came from apart from what you, an anonymous person, claim. (Note that I am not accusing you of doing any of this, but these are what Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid any question of it.)

Now that isn't to say that you cannot cite the court documents, but you cannot go on to offer your own interpretation or analysis of what they say or mean to Dux, or combine them with any other information to advance any argument. All that would be original research and synthesis. So that really puts things back to requiring a reliable source to perform all this first. I know its frustrating, but Wikipedia is not the place to "prove" anything that hasn't been proved already elsewhere. If you wish these documents to prove anything, you'll need to find a reliable source to publish your argument. Just be aware that Wikipedia will include any similarly published counter arguments.

Lastly, this was probably just a mistake in your part, but I note that you uploaded all the content to Wikimedia Commons as the "copyright holder". You aren't the copyright holder and are not in a position publish it under any kind of licence. Some of it may be public domain information, but that doesn't mean you can claim to be the copyright holder. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much better. Ok, I made a mistake, I haven't used this site before and didn't understand the license stuff and was just trying to get it posted. I placed John Monte as the source as it was his testimony and I should have put LA county courts. Point taken. I appreciate the helpful criticism as opposed to the degradation. I'm sure it's not the last mistake I will make but I'm just trying to add some documents which seemed to be hard to get earlier in this discussion. Phoenix2923 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You weren't degraded. Stop playing the victim. Look at the vile bullshit you said to me and you want to keep complaining about my doubting your intentions? At least now you admit you made a mistake, now maybe you'll think about amending your attack and insults that was based on my accepting what you entered as being true and correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also since I obtained them from LA county court records how would I "prove" that? I haven't altered anything, I just uploaded them as is (obviously under the wrong categories of licensing and source) but if I link them to the court it will just bring everybody to the front page unless they too pay the money for copies of said materials. Phoenix2923 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with using court records. Also, the problem is that BLP doesn't allow court records to be the sole evidence of contentious claims, only to support or clarify what is in thrid party sources. Most of what is being claimed in there is contentious and is actually disputed by reliable third party sources, not supported. That's what I keep trying to get you to see. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you had started your conversation with me in that manner I would have appreciated it much more than the way have been handling it. I am not trying to prove anything, I just thought that the documents I obtained would be found useful regarding the earlier discussion. I did post them incorrectly, I see that now. I can't even reference them because in order for other editors to see them on that website, you would have to pay as well as you already know. I figured the documents would be useful in supporting claims not just made by Dux, but by others concerning his military career. I don't see anything regarding a "Kumite" but it does seem to me, based on testimony, that his military records and affiliation with certain government organizations should be researched more. He did have Russian military leaders confirm his activities. Honestly I don't want to delve into conspiracy theories or anything but a vast majority of that information would be withheld from the public for national security reasons. However, the court cases allowed much testimony that supported Frank Dux's claims (yes I know they can't reference a first party claim) and also claims made by MG Kornienko, Rear Admiral Horton Smith, and a few others that yes indeed he worked for the CIA and ran missions in the former Soviet Union. I am not biased one way or the other but I do believe the documents and certain evidence should at least be taken into consideration. I'm not trying to fabricate anything, I just found the info very intriguing and thought I would share with you. Phoenix2923 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Say whatever you want. Calling me a pedophile etc was not justified under any circumstances. The problem is that the anonymous people are not credible. They may be totally honest and upstanding human beings, but wikipedia isn't going to buy into anonymous people, telling a reporter that nobody heard of, from a small news service that Dux's claims are true when reporters from well-regarded, reliable sources have disputed it in very public manners. The same with Kornienko, who may or may not even be that man and may or may not have even written when he wrote. The other policy in play here is WP:V. Lastly, one thing you might want to do is read WP:TRUTH. Honestly, I don't always like what the essay has to say, but it is a good insight about how wikipedia functions. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that the publications that claim Dux as a fraud are allowed and publications that support Dux are not? I don't understand. According to the court records Frank Dux was unable to prove "intentional malice" but WAS able to prove, in a court of law, his military and governmental activities. Somebody cited the same court records in the reference section on the main page so SOMEBODY was allowed to use it. Please tell me why I am unable to when I am citing the exact same files. Also Navy manual K-431-0097 should be added here as well. Frank Dux is given credit by the United States Military for his contributions in the Naval SpecOps warfare manual along with Royce Gracie. Like I said, I'm not trying to prove things I'm just presenting facts and hoping more can be added to this page.Phoenix2923 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I said. Have you read WP:RS yet? It has already been explained, the court records can be used to support something that was covered in a reliable 3rd party source. That is exactly how they are being used in this article, not to make a point or bring in new info, just support what is there. As for the navy manual. I've never seen the manual, but almost every reference to it and Dux being connected I find on Google are either Dux involved websites or sites that will most definately fail WP:RS. It is not difficult to prove that the manual exists. What isn't evident is Dux's involvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I HAVE seen the manual. That isn't the point though, it can't be shared in a public domain anyways so forget I said anything about it. Apparently there's a video coming out which contains interviews with high ranking military officials that back up Dux's claims and the documents that I posted. Is the interview with a Navy admiral going to be discredit due to policy as well?Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing I could say to you that you;d listen to anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before, if you approach me respectfully and not suggest that I'm violating neutrality policies and other things then I would love to hear what you have to say and I would love some advice. I don't know how to use Wikipedia like an experienced user might so any help would be greatly appreciated. I just kind of felt attacked from moment one. But if you are willing to be helpful then I would be happy to hear what you have to say. Or read it to be more specific. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You continue trying to do the finger pointing routine and ignore the fact that you went totally overboard with your name calling. Sarcasm or being snarky is one thing, blatant personal attacks are quite another. You went way past the line to be running around acting like I'm the one who should start apologizing.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, we need to stay on one topic here so we stop crossing our comments. I just got done apologizing and explaining where I was coming from. We keep jumping back and forth between this discussion page and the other one whatever it is. I don't expect an apology but I would like to have a constructive discussion with experienced members. Phoenix2923 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2011 (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. -- &oelig; &trade; 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. -- &oelig; &trade; 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)