Talk:Frank Dux

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *@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)

text: *  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)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *The date matches the one on his DD214. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Completely agree with . The article makes the details surrounding this very clear. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Perhaps you should take that up with Frank Dux. The association was done by him. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I'm not sure that Medal of Honor recipients would call themselves "winners"...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: As per Damien Linnane who is quite correct.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal of honor NOPE.