Talk:Frank Dux

Regarding unwarranted deletion of addition of authentic content - added in good faith from a neutral source

This is regarding a quite legitimate addition to the content of this page; firstly, the message sent regarding its deletion, and the response to it - made in good faith, and with nothing to gain other than in the interests of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.111.165 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Response

Hi - while I understand and respect the strict governance of living person's pages and the potential of desecration, rest assured the source is not "unreliable" - the original article's lighthearted tone regarding procurement of the leaked Dux fight footage was changed to more accurately reflect the situation. There is no doubt whatsoever of the authenticity of the information - which I have verified across a wide range of people in the Asian and American martial arts communities.

I trust that the content can be reinserted to reflect the new developments; it would be a gross injustice to have a section doubting this individual's legitimacy, YET disallow the inclusion of a journalist's work that has, to many, vindicated him.

Thus, the content I added was legitimate, and I trust there should be no issue with its inclusion - even if in edited form. Thank you kindly.86.150.111.165 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if one did suppose that was an RS (and I don't), the article explicitly states that it's not taking a position on the validity of Dux's inflated claims. Given (which we don't have) an ironbound assurance that the video is what it says it is and that the person in it is Dux, that would change very little. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• First, please stop spamming this copy and paste message everywhere. Second, this source is not reliable. If you disagree, take it to RSN and see what they say. Third, as Pinkbeast pointed out, even the source says it's not verified. Fourth, the source also suggests that Dux himself is the source, making tis even more unusable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• @86.150.111.165: It's incredibly dubious what the footage even is. Much more importantly even if that's Frank Dux in there (not verified), it still doesn't mean a thing per the author's description and under no circumstances does it come within a thousand miles of validating any of Dux's incredibly outlandish claims. This article is already overwhelmingly generous towards him given the mountain of evidence that points towards him being a pure charlatan. Beansy (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• More importantly, the footage has been shown to actually be someone else. When shown said evidence, Frank is now claiming he never claimed it was him at all, despite proof that he supplied the video to the "The Voice vs Frank Dux" people. Emails sent to the producers, along with Frank's claims from his own Facebook page, screenshots, etc, can all be seen in this Facebook thread. PhilB61 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

New User Here

Hello all, I am very new to wikipedia and am still learning the ropes. I apologise if this is posted in the wrong place but I am still trying to get to grips with things. I posted information with no citations which was removed, which I understand. I then re-posted with sources and correct and accurate mathematics and my post was again removed. Please can someone help me in relation to this. If I knew how to email the users who have removed my additions I would but I cant figure it out at all. I thank you very much in advance.Powsie82 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No need for e-mail, Hulk hears you.

The problem lies in synthesis. Yes, Bloodsport says it's based on truth, and yes, Dux seems full of shit about a lot of things. And sure, if all those 56 knockouts were the results of matches in a single elimination tournament, it would take a while. But for all we know, there were eight rounds, and Dux knocked out 50 dudes for practice before his final.

You'll need a published reliable source pointing out the math and making the argument, or it's original research. You can imagine how crazy it would get if we just let everyone on the Internet say "Here's what so-and-so said" (with source) "and here's why it's wrong" (no source).

Wikipedia is more about verifiability than absolute truth (which probably doesn't even exist in the outside world). Your math can be stellar, but if you can't point to someone else saying what you're saying, it belongs somewhere else on the web. Bleacher Report, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi hulk, sorry for re-posting a few times in the main article, I didnt know what was going on until I dug a bit deeper on the laptop, I am very new here! Dux has always stated it was done in tournament format (my argument with your albeit sound theory of practice) but again there is no proof of this, especially if Dux has said it. My maths comes from other sites, I read it on Sherdog, bullshido and bodybuilding.com forums typed by joe public that obviously 56 KO's in a single tournament requires a minimum of 56 rounds, 2 in the final, 4 in the semis, 8 in the quarters etc. as the amount of rounds stack up, the fighter count doubles every time until eventually you get to 72,057,594,037,927,936 competitors. even if he fought 36 more fighters than anyone else it would still take take 1,048,576 combatants to form 20 rounds. If only I could prove this! I mean we all know that he is an incredible fantasist and im sure 99.9% of the population do not believe a word he says, types, prints etc I just thought the world should see it here! I will be more careful in future about editing and I thankyou for your help.151.227.157.5 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about proving it, I think everyone who reverted you believed the numbers. We can't use Joe Public on Sherdog (or any forum) anymore than we can use him directly through Wikipedia. Like you say, most people don't believe Dux, and Google finds plenty to reaffirm that doubt, so as long as Wikipedia isn't saying he did do this, there's no harm in not saying he didn't. People still know.

I know it can seem Wikipedia's the authority figure of the Internet, and it can be tempting to want to state something here, rather than on the many places that turn up slightly lower on the first page of search results. But for every person with basically good intentions and sound logic, there'll be these fine folks. And for everyone wanting to prove something, another will want to disprove it. Nobody wants to read a flame war in an encyclopedia article, even if some of it's true. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• I called the math dubious because it makes many assumptions. Even if (and that's a big if) reliable source published the math theory, I'd still oppose including it because it's truthfully not relevant to the biography. There are many dubious claims by Dux, so highlighting this one seems out of the norm. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• For the record, I believe I may be the author of said math. It hardly requires a reliable source to understand how exponents work, this is quite basic arithmetic. That being said, I do agree that highlighting this particular dubious claim makes no sense. For the record, here is one the places said math was written by me, along with the process I took (the "wiki page" referred to in that post is the Bullshido wiki, not this one) in this Bullshido post. PhilB61 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for easier understanding

The meaning of the last sentence of the chapter "Martial arts career": "In 2012 Sheldon Lettich, co-writer of the film Bloodsport based on Dux's "Kumite" claims, dismissed those claims and others Dux had made as being completely false." is not clear to me. I mean (maybe) only native english speakers do understand the correct meaning of this sentence (not regarding the reference) but i do not (german).

I ask google translater for help -> sounds funny. My interpretation of this sentence is: "In 2012 said Sheldon Lettich, co-writer of the film Bloodsport based on Dux's "Kumite", that the allegations of Dux were completely wrong."

Please keep in mind the difference between encyclopedia and literature!

PS: I ask google translater on my comment as well -> sounds funny as well (hoho;) 92.228.252.205 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)justux92.228.252.205 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• You have to read it in context. The preceding paragraph talks about the claims and then the sentence you're reading talks about the writer of the movie that is allegedly based on Dux's life saying they're false. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is a film called "Bloodsport".
• This film was co-wrote by Sheldon Lettich.
• This film was based on claims made by Dux.
• In 2012 Lettich said those claims were completely false. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• It reads correctly. Google Translator doesn't always get context correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth

I think recent edits have been quite confused, not helped by my reverting myself. In older revisions of this page (eg this one) we had him born on the 13th of July, whereas recent edits have had him born on another date. The year has always been 1956, but... have we ever had any remotely reliable source for any of this? I reverted myself because if we know the year surely he can be trusted about the day, but perhaps we don't know the year? Pinkbeast (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think earlier versions relied on his bio. With his history of being less than credible, I'm uncomfortable with using him as the source for much at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree and I think it's unfortunate that this is simply being reverted with no attempt to engage here. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As regards the other infobox changes, AFAIK there's no serious dispute that Dux knows ninjustu (just how he learned it); and that Tanaka is probably fictional is, I think, better covered in the article body. With two editors in favour and one against, absent any discussion, I intend to edit to reflect this. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We've had another round of edits here with no-one using the talk page apart from Niteshift36 and me. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I found his date of birth in a magazine and added it the article, sourced of course. Granted I've found different day and months in non RS sources as well, but it's the most reliable source I can find and the sources all agree on 1956 at least. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• The date matches the one on his DD214. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Dux/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

---

• Linked Kumitsu and Ninjitsu. Could you check if I have linked them correctly and if you do not agree any among those should be linked, feel free to revert!

• I'm happy enough with that at this stage.

• Is there any reason why Kumite has been put in double-quotation marks?

• Not really. Removed.

• Do we know the names of the countries that he was sent to a mission on in Southeast Asia? It might be better to list them if so, or if you do not find them that should be fine too.

• I didn't come across that information in any of the sources I read. It's my understanding Dux is deliberately vague about the details. When he sued Soldier of Fortune, Dux was asked to go into details about his covert operations but he refused, telling the court that if he did he, his family, and everyone in the court would be murdered.

• As it seems a covert operation, he might not have mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• For consistency with other names, the B. of B. G. Burkett should be expanded too.

• I can't actually find a reference to what the B stands for. His Wikipedia article is just entitled B. G. Burkett so I think that would be the most appropriate thing to refer to him as even if we did know his full name. For a comparison, her article is entitled J. K. Rowling because that's what she is commonly refereed to. Accordingly, links to her article should be written with this abbreviation, even though her full name is known.

• "Lt. Cmdr. Larry Simmons" If I were to guess the abbreviations, Lt. would be Lieutenant and cmdr. would be Commander? If they are used frequently in military it seems fine. Although, if they are rare abbreviations, for easier understanding, it should be expanded.

• Good point. I've linked it to Lieutenant commander.

• In the lead, ninjitsu is without capital whereas elsewhere it is capitalized. Any reason for that?

• No, good point. Fixed.

• Also, should it not be ninjutsu instead of ninjitsu?

• You're right. Fixed.

• "Koga Yamabushi Ninjutsu" this is unclear. Is it instead "Dux states that he was introduced to Ninjutsu and was trained in Koga by a Yamabushi named Senzo "Tiger" Tanaka"? Also, why is Tiger in double-quotation marks? Is Koga the Koga family or the place? If it is the Koga family, it should be mentioned clearly as it could be misinterpreted for the place. Also, if so, Koga should be linked here instead of in the Career section.

• Tiger is his nickname. It's not uncommon to feature nicknames in double-quotations in the middle of an actual name. I added many sources to the article and read every source that was in the article before I overhauled it, except the one that backs up that statement (Can Ninjitsu Make You the Ultimate Warrior). Accordingly I am accepting good faith for the two sentences this source backs up. As this is unclear (and in my opinion of not much importance) I've decided to just simplify it to saying he was trained in ninjutsu. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Are you able to find a picture? If not that is fine as well, although if you are able to it might make it better.

• Not one that has been released into the public domain, and since he is still alive it's my understanding it wouldn't be possible to justify using one of the many images of him available from a google search under fair use rationale. Also I don't want to contact him myself and ask for one as quite frankly he appears to be mentally unstable. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• I've since found two free images of other people referred to in the article and have added them. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Are you able to find a wikilink to John Johnson and John Stewart?

• No. They don't appear to have articles. For example John D. Stewart (journalist) and John Johnson (reporter) are not the same reporter/journalist features in this article. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You have done amazing work on this article. It is eligible for a GA status, congratulations! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Medal of honor NOPE.

Pointless discussion from disruptive editor, even if - AGF - they do not mean to be.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You should remove all reference of the medal of honor to this man. The medal of honor society has a list of every Medal of honor ever issued to a service man. Frank Dux is not on this list. It's not disputed it's a fact. What he did is bought a Medal of honor Some place and did not know that the Marines are issued a different medal from the Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The article does not state that he was awarded the medal, only that he claims he was awarded the medal. There's a difference, and the article makes it quite clear. There is no reason to remove any of this detail from the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Completely agree with Chaheel Riens. The article makes the details surrounding this very clear. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC) If it can be proved his statement is a lie as no record exists of Frank Dux in the Medal of Honor society records. Why allow a lie. Is weki truth or allows lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC) It is relevant to the article that he has claimed to have been awarded the medal—and that the claims are widely discredited. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC) 50.104.74.63, currently the article tells the truth - in the sense that it gives hard evidence that Frank Dux makes false claims. We are not going to make the article inaccurate by removing the fact he has falsely claimed to receive the medal of honor. It's important for the reader to know that Frank Dux is the kind of man who would lie about something like this. What part of that do you not understand? Damien Linnane (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I understand you dishonor every real Medal of Honor winner by having Frank Dux name associated with them. When you know his claim is an obvious and provable lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Perhaps you should take that up with Frank Dux. The association was done by him. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Additionally, I'm not sure that Medal of Honor recipients would call themselves "winners"... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Considering this IP address has a strong history of disruptive editing, I'm starting to wonder if this person actually wants to protects Frank Dux's reputation by removing the evidence that he lied about receiving the Medal of Honor. Either this is trolling or it's just a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In either case I don't think anyone should have to spend more time replying to this nonsense. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Your claim of disruptive editing is a lie. When the truth is provided to weki the children who claim the be the know-it-all editors remove the truth and then claim the truth is disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Do you have a specific change you want to make to the article, based on a specific reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) As per Damien Linnane who is quite correct. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)