Talk:Moni Aizik

Neutrality
This article has been improved and became neutral. But still there are people coming with fake accounts and trying to damage it. Stop vandalism! I will not let it happen, I am watching it closely. Romayan (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note, ASA charges are taken down and the case is closed. For this reason their article has been removed from the ASA site. Romayan (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the case is closed or not, but closing it doesn't mean it never happened. You can't just remove any reference to it. Similarly, you can't use this guys site as a reliable source about the outcome.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact is when ASA has a case against someone, it posts a press-release on its site. This is what it did when it questioned some facts in Moni Aizik's career. But when offered an answer that satisfied the Association, it close the case and informed Moni Aizik about it. And - as it usually does - it removed the article from their site, which means the case IS closed. You rely on an outdated source. You are saying that this fact cannot be ignored, ok, keep it, but don't ignore the reality - the article has been removed from the site, the charges have been lifted, the case is closed. Please, at least pretend that you are objective. I am very disappointed with you. You are not interested in finding out the truth. Romayan (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, because it is CLOSED doesn't mean it never happened, nor does it mean he wasn't wrong. Maybe he wasn't, but you can't make that presumption based on closure. The mere absence of a posting doesn't mean he was absolved. Using your theory, the absence of a child must mean a couple is unable to conceive. The conclusions you are asking to be drawn amount to original reasearch. Again, read WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:RS and add WP:OR to that list. Look, you can try all the false allegations you want about me, but that won't change policy. Besides, I actually voted to keep this article in the last AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP violation to use his website as a source for this. It's original research to claim something has been removed from the ASA site. And I've reverted the edits as there is no evidence that the ASA has changed it's mind or removed the adjudication which can still be found at . Just because the url no longer existed wasn't evidence that the case didn't. If the ASA has changed its mind I could find nothing on the ASA site (I used the rulings search box as well as the general search box) which suggested that it has. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the adjudication was AGAINST Aizik, according to the site: "we concluded that the ad was misleading.""We told Commando Krav Maga not to repeat the claims." This is completely contrary to what the editor is claiming. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Moni_Aizik
Hi - for your information - I have opened a thread at the Biography of living peoples noticeboard regarding an article you have editied- thanks - WP:BLPN - You  really  can  15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy point
The whole edit version meant to make an article more objective was reverted instead of supplying relevant links about Moni Aizik's controversy. If there is a controversy about a person in Wikipedia usually it goes to a special section with an explanation and links proving the controversy. There is no real proof of M.A.'s controversy. There are several people who are highly interested in harming Aizik's reputation and user Dougweller with his edits only shows that he is one of them. Any trustworthy links about the controversy should be added before the article is reverted to a libelous page. Romayan (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits as problematic for a BLP article. Your comments here come very close to a legal threat, for which you can be blocked. Your comment about Dougweller is a personal attack. I'd tread more carefully if I were you. BTW, "controversy" sections are disfavored at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean they aren't inserted, but, if possible, the material, to the extent it's appropriate for inclusion, would be integrated into the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about Aizik. I do care about our articles. There have been attempts to use this article both to promote and to attack Aizik and neither are acceptable. I find it odd that Romayan talks about trustworthy links after trying to use Aizik's press release to claim that the adjudication was removed from the ASA site, writing "In October 2012 an article about Moni Aizik has been removed from the ASA site. Soon a press-release appeared at Moni Aizik's private site. According to it, Victoria Bugler (CAP Compliance Executive) and Matt Wilson (ASA press officer) received a comprehensive explanation on the case from Moni Aizik and were satisfied with it. According to the press-release, ASA officials stated that "the advertiser can make claims in its ads in line with those that were subject to formal investigation by the ASA". Press-release noted that "CAP was satisfied with the evidence and therefore closed the case".The ASA has closed the case against Moni Aizik and Combat Survival Inc."

Note that it is still there and says:

Response Commando Krav Maga said documents that related to Moni Aziks military experience and counter terrorism expertise were considered classified by the Israeli military and were not readily available. They said members of highly specialised units were not permitted to specify which unit they had belonged to or the duties they had performed; to do so would break the military code of conduct.

Assessment Upheld

The ASA noted CAP Code clause 3.1 said advertisers must hold evidence before making claims, which should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA. Because we had not seen evidence that Moni Azik was an "Ex-Israeli Special Forces Commando" and a "Counter Terrorism Expert" we concluded that the ad was misleading. The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Commando Krav Maga not to repeat the claims.

Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller and Bbb23 are completely correct. I support their correct actions and will continue to support them. Romaya, who has an admitted connection to the subject, has a history of making statements about this that are factually incorrect and a penchant for using primary sources to sanitize this article. If this keeps up, I'm sensing a block on the horizon. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is a difficult BLP article because the controversial claims and their well-documented ASA non-acceptance are a large part of the claim to notability. jmcw (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits, BLPN
As the editor replaced the edit claiming that Aizik responded to the adjudication, which is false (he responded to the claim), I'm not sure we are going to get far here so I've raised this at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * hey doug - that was quick. i think a discussion here is fair, but sure, blpn is good too. if you are bothered by the one word, then you are right to change that one word only. the rest of my edit is fine. but to wholesale claim something that is not, that's not good. also, did you read wp:undue? it really speaks volumes about what you are trying to do. and please read wp:lede about including controversies there. yes, they can be, but don't have to be. and lastly, i really find no RS outside of the very narrow martial arts world to even justify the existence of the article. it appears that this guy has done some good, hs some notability, and one organization told him to not say 'x' when advertising. (they are not a cout of law). Soosim (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "i really find no RS outside of the very narrow martial arts world to even justify the existence of the article" I am afraid that this is typical of the modern martial arts articles in general. This article has at least two magazines and the ASA file as references: maybe better than average and which a BLP article must have. jmcw (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's enough, I'm sure he meets our criteria. I went to BLP because this sort of thing is best sorted with more input, and also because my revert wasn't met with discussion but simply with another revert. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability
This is a difficult BLP article. If you read the previous AFD comments, the problem he had with ASA is what distinguishes him from hundreds/thousands of not-notability people who have establish a new martial arts school. I think the lead paragraph must mention the ASA ruling. jmcw (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ASA info needs to be in the lead. I don't, however, think that his notability rests on that ruling. The Inside Kung Fu and Black Belt articles do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew sources
Hi everybody. Since some facts of the biography are questioned here, I added some independent reliable sources in Hebrew. One of them is the main sports channel 5, and the other one is the club where M.A. trained his students. It can be clearly seen that the sources are not new, so they are not fake. As for the translation, everything can be easily checked by using Google Translate these days. Feel free to do it. Romayan (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to stop edit-warring it back in until a neutral party can look into it. To be blunt, you have a history of promotional postings for Aizik and of some very questionable interpretations of policies and what is reliable. Every week, this looks more like a conflict of interest. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Inside Kung Fu source
The article was written by one of Aizik's students. Not sure we can use it as being a "third party" source. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Son
Is it worth noting in a trivia section that his son is a professional Dota 2 player?--69.4.45.35 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * not even remotely worth noting. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's plainly and evidently worth nothing, and it's kinda weird that you're on year five of your crusade to remove mention of the existence of a notable relative on Moni's page whenever it gets added. Chajusong (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moni Aizik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003040427/http://www.realfighting.com/content.php?id=109 to http://www.realfighting.com/content.php?id=109
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409002205/http://www.insidekung-fu.com/content/view/61/36/1/3 to http://www.insidekung-fu.com/content/view/61/36/1/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)