# Talk:Frank Dux

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)

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)

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! 

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

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: 

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)

@Damien Linnane:
According to the Australian War Memorials' website info about the 'Stolen Valour' book, the B.G. in "Burkett, B.G." is "Bernard Gary" see https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/LIB48578
Regards, 220 of ßorg 03:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, thanks for updating the relevant pages with that. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This calculation was provided by one editor, then taken down by another editor claiming it was original research. It isn't original research at all, because the way such tournaments work is uncontroversial public knowledge, and anyone can easily do the math themselves to check. (For a 60-round single-elimination tournament, it's particularly easy: the 60th round final has two competitors, the 59th round has four, and each earlier round has twice as many, again and again. And 2×2×2×2×2×2..., repeated until there are sixty of the number 2, does give more than 1.1 quintillion.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

'Original research' does not mean you are incorrect. You are correct, but as per the discussion below, a reliable source needs to cover this. You can't add it yourself. Adding it yourself is the original research. If you're going to respond please only do so at the section below. There's no need to have this conversation twice. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Fact: Dux said he was in a 60-round single-elimination tournament.
Fact: A 60-round single-elimination tournament requires more than 1.1 quintillion competitors in the first round.
Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:CALC specifically permits doing simple calculations like this, saying they are not original research.
No extrapolation has been done. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you're taking something someone said,  then creating criticism of it by combining that with another fact.   This is original synthesis. The fact that you're using maths to do that is not the point.   Not only that,  you're taking something someone else said, and supporting what they said with something they didn't. Those saying the tournament would be impossible to keep secret may not have performed anything like this calculation, and not thinking of the mathematical impossibility.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Showing that his statement leads to an impossible result is not synthesizing anything. Synthesizing only refers to adding a new idea, and there is no new idea here. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
What you're doing:
I say 2+2 is 5
You say no, 2+2 is 4
I say "I never said 4, you're synthesizing!" TooManyFingers (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is not at all what you are doing. This is what you are doing, by your own admission:
Fact A: Dux said 60 rounds<cited>
Fact B: This would need a massive number because maths..<no cite>
Therefore C is implied that Dux is stating the impossible and lying.
C is unsourced and original synthesis.  How B was calculated is not the problem.  You need a source that has constructed C .  You cannot create criticism here.
You are also edit warring by repeatedly putting this in without consensus. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
No cite is needed for simple math. That's the point. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
No synthesis has taken place. This is exactly like if there was an article about a game in which the score (sourced) was 4 to 3, and boldly stating (unsourced) that the difference was 1 point. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Or, to be more accurate:
A subject says he drove ten million miles on a certain day. There is no synthesis involved to calculate that he would have had to go faster than 400,000 miles per hour to do it. There is no new idea here. Someone used a calculator, in an uncontroversial way. Sources were not combined in any way.
But:
A subject says he considers himself a Glefghor. An editor looks up Glefghor in a book, and in there it says Glefghors usually like broccoli. The editor adds to the article "This subject likes broccoli". That is a new idea COMBINED from two sources, and is synthesis.
Please actually read Wikipedia:CALC TooManyFingers (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CALC is about combining numbers on different sources that discuss the same subject, in a simple calculation.  That's not what you are doing.   You are taking information about Dux, combining it with entirely separate information about how a type of tournament works, performing a calculation by putting the two together, and then publishing your conclusion on Wikipedia to support what you think someone meant.  That's obvious original research.  You need a source that has done this. You cannot be the one to do it.   And if you don't revert, I will report your edit warring. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Escape Orbit. The math is correct, but that isn't the issue. The issue is you need to find an WP:RS source that says the math is correct, you can't just do it yourself. When I overhauled this article and improved it to GA status I went looking for an RS source that confirms this, but I couldn't find one. I very much look forward to being able to add this very true and relevant information to the article, but until a RS source covers it, that's not going to happen. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I briefly considered trying to find a journalist who would be willing to write about this issue in a RS source when I overhauled the article. If I had the time, I'd either try to do that, or I'd try to write an article about it myself for an RS source. Alas I don't have the time for either, but I'd encourage anyone else to try if they feel so inclined. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Concur with Escape Orbit and Damien Linnane. The spirit of WP:CALC is that it's acceptable to use simple math to calculate a number that is encyclopedic, and although that number is not plainly spelled out in a single source, you have reliable sources for things that make up the number. Good examples are calculating the total number of troops in a battle based on a list of participating military units that includes the number of troops in each unit, or the total number of counties in Ohio based on a list of the counties. WP:CALC shouldn't be used to implicitly throw shade on someone's claims by doing calculations based on what they said or wrote, regardless of how obvious you think the math is. Besides, the article already includes a reliable cited source that says that Dux's claims are bunk! Carguychris (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Nobody thinks the math is obvious, because they don't need to. It is in fact obvious – it's just something many readers wouldn't necessarily think to examine. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
It isn't originally my edit, but regardless, this is not about what anyone thinks Dux meant - he wrote out unmistakably and unambiguously exactly what he meant, and published it in a fairly widely distributed book. It's as if someone published a statement like "I drove the entire eight hundred thousand miles of Interstate 5", and you're jumping down people's throats for pointing out why that number can't be right. It's not research or synthesis to do that.
But I'll take it down because so many are irrationally against having it. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Someone already did, while I was at work. It's done, anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks.  If you can find a source that points this out, then please feel free to add it. Dux likely didn't think it through and just went for a big number to sound impressive.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)