Talk:Bullshido.net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article was nominated for deletion on April 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was 7 votes for keep and 1 vote for merge. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] THIS PAGE SHOULD BE NOMINATED FOR SPEEDY DELETION

Bullshido page is nothing more than a ad for the website. If Phrost wants to make this page acceptable, he should provide links to websites other than Bullshido that deal with the McDojo or No-BSMA problem. -- Shenshuai (currently offline, diverting topic, no interest in above conversation.)

The Bullshido page is no more an ad for the website than the entries for Somethingawful, Slashdot, or Newgrounds are ads for their respective websites. In terms of Internet presence (#1 general martial arts site on big-boards.com), real-life impact (discovery of Ashida Kim's name and use of site material for a federal investigation with David "Race" Bannon, and being the foremost site for investigating fraudulent martial arts (similar to how Sherdog is the foremost site for MMA-related news and information), the site is significant enough across numerous dimensions to merit its own page.
Not to mention that for Newgrounds, the only external link is the site itself, and the SA.com page has external links that link entirely to SA.com or SA.com-created content. Saying that Bullshido.net's founder has to provide links to other pages means that these pages and many more would have to do the same. --Scb steve 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


I concur. The sole purpose of the entry regarding Bullshido is self-grandisement. Their claims for betterment of Martial Arts are found solely on their own site.

Be all so much easier if you 'Phrost' weren't such a hypocrite, and had not applied the 'miserable user' hack to someone (i.e. me) who simply said things you didn't agree with you sweet little Bullshidoka you.

When you brag that Bullshido values 'free speech' above all else, you kind of have to allow it, and the hack you applied to my account means it's impossible exercise that. What exacerbates the issue, is that when replies were made to points raised by myself, you had the opportunity to explain why I could not reply, but you didn't. You then went on to comment on myself, in the surety that no contest to said comments would be made. That's Bullshit. You should report yourself to.....yourself?

The vote for deletion on this article already came and went. There was near-unanimous voting to keep the article on the site as it was written. --Scb steve 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Then clearly the 'vote' came a little early.
Is there any way of verifying that the majority of votes swaying closure did not come from those with a vested interest in the non deletion? I doubt it, and that makes the NPOV questionable. I'd move that this be re-visited, with a pro-active approach taken as regards opinion. Not relying on votes of those whose interests are best served by closure.
Mr. 86.142.62.128, the only clear thing here was that a 6-day round of deliberations by Wikipedia admins determined that the Bullshido.net article should stay with NO final votes cast for deleting the article. The evidence for this is located at this linked text here with 7 votes for keep and 1 vote for merge. 2 of the keep votes were by Bullshido.net members, one of whom is a non-staff member heavily involved with Wikipedia on alternative matters. Even if we changed those 2 votes to delete, there would still be a clear, decisive decision by multiple impartial Wiki-admins to keep the article in a state very similar to how it currently exists. Only one admin desired to significantly modify the article.
Your desire to have the issue revisited is not borne out by any presented evidence on your or anyone else's part, nor is it based on any substantiated grievance beyond claims that the article is inaccurate/incorrect without proof of your claims. Further, your desire is heavily countered by voluminous proof presented here and discussed previously in support of the article as it stands. I would recommend finding a sturdier leg to stand upon, as yours have been repeatedly kicked out from under you thus far. --Scb steve 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Any issues external to this article should be addressed elsewhere. --Scb steve 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As they are examples of why Bullshido is de-frauding Wilkipedia, and indeed the public, I can't think of anywhere more appropriate they be expressed.
Fraud is an extremely strong word with a very clear legal definition. Your use of it means you have proof or evidence of Bullshido defrauding Wikipedia or the public. Making false claims of fradulent activity is a serious thing to do, and I would highly recommend you substantiate such claims, or withdraw them. --Scb steve 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article can be more encycropedic

Add ing "Characteristic" and "Criticism" section probably improve the presentation

Main Characteristics may be

1. Emphasis on Empericism/Verification (Throwdown and various investigation)
2. No-Bullshit attitude (Fun, juvenile, friendly and honesty)

Criticism

1. Juvenile attitude including the title name of website damage the credibility of the site
2. Bias toward MMA (Martial arts which focus on joing manupilation and other unsafe techinques has no way to verify their effectivness in the throwdown)

Plus, popular controvercial issues in bullshido can be mentioned under "controversy" section. These may include

1. Effectivness of Kata
2. History of TKD and other Korean Marial arts
3. Effectivness of Gvound work in self defence
4. Role of ethics in martial arts
5. Martial sports vs Martial arts

[edit] AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Both views are equally valid

I think the term "vandalism" is being thrown around far too much here and used as an excuse to revert without justification. The last revert was not due to vandalism, it was due to the insertion of several facts about the site that evidently the members of bullshido.net are for some reason unwilling for the world to see. An entire paragraph about the actions of the members including a link to a relevant thread on the site itself was removed with no justification; this is pure censorship and an obvious attempt to ignore one of the many problems that bullshido.net has.Triune 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean claims like this? "It could be argued that those who were once targeted by Bullshido over their outlandish claims, now make up the bulk of Bullshido's membership." That seems a rather unsubstantiated claim - the bulk of Bullshido's membership? Slideyfoot 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Response to TriuneThe actions discussed are not a notable feature of the website. If one looks at the Something_Awful_Forums article, the flame forum is generally discussed as a hostile forum without specifics, such as how (most likely) members of SA Forums found their mothers compared to whores or sexually explicit overtures made towards female members. The only time a group got singled out in that article is the Anti-Furryism section.
Cherry-picking a website that's over 4 years old for an explicit comment or an animosity on the part of one or more members is hardly notable or worth including in an encyclopedic article about a noteworthy website. A notable criticism of Bullshido.net is in the "External Links" section where Phil Elmore criticized the site on his "Martialist" website. --Scb steve 13:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That's only one criticism, and still people have attempted to remove it at least twice since I came along. In any case, bullshido could only be considered noteworthy for 2 things: the fraud-busting, something that happens on martial arts forums all over the internet and is therefore nothing special, and the attitude of the posters, which that link pretty well demonstrated. Having said that, there are many other threads that could be used in place of that one, so perhaps a section on the general attitude of bullshido members and their treatment of others might be considered relevant when I have time to write one. I'll look into it some time.
Unless you want to do it? It would certainly be interesting to see a neutral perspective paragraph or two on that one, and of course to see if Phrost considered it vandalism and banned the author.Triune 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Response to Triune As described in the NPOV rules article, "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." The view that a significant portion of the Bullshido member base solicits the information of undergarments from minors is utterly without merit and does not deserve inclusion as it is by far a minority view. Further, no other encyclopedic article on other Internet forums includes any entry of significance on general conduct towards others beyond brief mentions. The Bullshido.net article already has information concerning its more-volatile-than-average attitude - there's mention of the forum being characterized by its no-holds-barred attitude in forum discussions, heated, uncensored discussion that can lead to flaming, as well as the description that Scorn is heaped upon claims which lack verifiable documentation and upon claimants who refuse to answer challenges in competition.
Therefore, any further attempt to describe specific antisocial behaviors of either its members or staff is unnecessary and would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. The only exception being if it were noteworthy in some way (for example, a Bullshido staff member harassed a person to the point of being arrested by the police for cyberstalking). People's feelings being hurt by the Internet or someone's martial art school being bashed are hardly encyclopedic knowledge.
Regardng Bullshido's involvement in fraud-busting, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that Bullshido is "nothing special." The Ashida Kim debunking alone was noteworthy enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia; an article that survived a deletion vote initiated by the owner/creator of the site, Jimbo Wales. --Scb steve 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No offence Steve, but you are not a wikipedia admin, so I would prefer to go to them to determine the NPOV rules rather than listen to a member of the site I feel deserves a more balanced view. In addition to this, the NPOV rules are designed to stop biased depictions of controversial material/issues, and as such claiming that criticisms should not be included beyond the couple of phrases you've already posted isn't even a correct interpretation of the NPOV rules. The fact is that the significant majority of martial artists that I've met on the internet either consider bullshido to be a hive of trolls at this stage, haven't heard of it at all, or consider it to be extremely overrated and harsh to outsiders whether justified or not. Because of this, anything included as criticism of the site represents a significant opinion, something which can be included as part of the NPOV as long as it is fair, which I intend to be when I have time to include some noteworthy criticism.
Ashida Kim was well known to be a fraud offering fraudulent products before bullshido was even founded. You can look on e-budo.com for confirmation of that if you don't take my word for it. Bullshido worked with what had already been done to expose his challenge as a fake with their acceptance and his subsequent backing down, but as I said, a refused challenge by a known fraud isn't that special.
I'm sorry, but there are those of us who will not stand for Phrost's website being painted in a purely good light while toning down the real flavour of the site, and while wikipedia is open to editing by others, people will contribute to the article. After all, the point of wikipedia is to have multiple editors for controversial articles, and so far most of what's contained in this one has come straight from the people the article is about. Bullshido is a controversial topic and as such the real flavour will eventually be evidenced to anyone reading this article.Triune 06:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If and when you present valid, noteworthy material concerning the website, it will be considered accordingly. --Scb steve 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for NPOV dispute

It can be seen from the preceding section that there is controversy about this article's NPOV. One of the most important point to be made here is that the article was written and is constantly "patrolled" and "protected" by members of the subject website. It fails to address the major points of criticism (namely the belligerence of its members, and the overwhelming bias against anything that isn't full contact MMA style Martial Arts).

Being a member of a website often targetted by the said forum, I do not think I would be objective enough for a revision of the article. We need an independant third party for this. Anyone up to the task? --Guizzy 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The only controversy surrounding the view of the website so far comes from disgruntled people who have been part of the site's investigations. The Bullshido and Bullshido.net articles were recently declared as substantial and worthwhile by the Wikipedia admins by surviving a vote for deletion. This article is not "protected," as alleged, as opposed to maintained to reflect an accurate, honest assessment of the site and its notable features. There is already adequate mention of the site's heavy emphasis on full contact sparring, MMA rulesets, and proof of a martial art's capabilities through empirical evidence (such as success in a sporting context). This is explained thoroughly in "Flavor of the Site," "Verification Process," and the description of the "Throwdowns" that Bullshido hosts.
Specifically addressing the "belligerence claim," it would only serve non-neutral interests to describe the membership attitude further beyond "no-holds-barred attitude," "profanity is openly tolerated," the presence of "heated, uncensored discussion that can lead to flaming," and the fact that "Scorn is heaped upon claims which lack verifiable documentation and upon claimants who refuse to answer challenges in competition." That's four examples already of how Bullshido.net members can be antagonistic towards others.
Given that issues of "belligerence" and "bias" are already substantially addressed in the article, there is no issue with neutral point of view, but rather, the desire of some parties to enshrine a non-neutral, anti-Bullshido view into the article. I am removing the template until further substantial justification is presented for its placement. --Scb steve 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not debating the validity of having an article on Bullshido.net article. The fact is that this article was written by its own subject, which makes it non-NPOV. Every "criticism" on the page is controlled by the subject, and turned to sound much more like a praise. "Scorn is heaped upon claims which lack verifiable documentation and upon claimants who refuse to answer challenges in competition." This sentence in particular makes it sound as if EVERY person insulted/flamed on Bullshido.net IS a fraud. "heated, uncensored discussion that can lead to flaming," make it sound as if flaming is a rare occurence on the forums. I would agree with it if people were questionned before being insulted; but that is just not the case.
The belligerence I am talking about is not adressed properly. The problem is not that it is not written that the forums are not moderated; rather than omitting that the vast majority of Bullshido.net regulars (and this including the staff) will belittle, insult, harass or parody anyone not conforming to their narrow vision of Martial Arts.
It is a notable fact, and should be part of the criticism. The external link to "The Martialist" does not cover most base on which the website is criticised. Wikipedia is a ressource that cover a neutral point of view, not "give you a link which, if you bother to read it, might give you a counter-argument". As of now, the article reads like an advertisment.
If someone unbiaised cared to write the three sections mentionned above about Criticism, Characteristics and Controversies, it would make the article much more neutral, and would be okay by me.
If you were sooo much about honesty, wouldn't you be able to accept that the article be modified in such a way? After all, there's nothing to hide from a impartial 3rd-party, right?
There is also no mention that Ashida Kim was a very well known fraud before Bullshido.net's investigation, and that exagerates the website's involvment in the matter.
You are not a Wiki administrator; you have no right to decide if there is or not a NPOV dispute on the article. From the moment two people are in a disagreement on if an article has a NPOV, there is a NPOV dispute. I disagree with you. You have no right to argue that. So there is a NPOV dispute.--Guizzy 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So if one person disputes the article on gravity being the force that holds people to the surface of the Earth, then they can slap an NPOV dispute template on the article? Somehow I don't think so. --Phrost 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if it is a notable opinion and the person feel that his viewpoint is not adequately represented, yes.
I am going to put on the NPOV hat and write the sections mentionned. I'm going to Assume good faith and I expect that it will not be removed for no justifiable reasons.--Guizzy 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Poor analogy Phrost. Gravity is a scientific fact accepted by pretty much the entirity of the academic field. The attitude of bullshido members is naturally viewed from at least 3 perspectives: that of the members, that of the people on the receiving end of "treatment" of some description, and those who are simply looking in from the outside and observing behaviour. Since all three views are equally valid in terms of who is "right", any view represented by a significant number of people is worthy of mention on wikipedia. I believe the NPOV rules are quite clear on that one.
Your site has caused controversy over the years, and anything controversial will inherantly have at least two opposing sides, and to have an article written only by one side, from one perspective, is not neutral any way you swing it. Hence the neutrality is disputed and the template should stay.
Guizzy, good luck with the write-up. Triune 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The sentence you dispute regarding "scorn" does not hold up to the interpretation you give it. The sentence is obvious in stating that people who make statements or claims without evidence or without a willingness to prove their claims via action are roundly criticized. That is the meaning of that sentence, and that is a highly accurate, factual statement about the nature of the site. People who can claim they can fight off multiple-attackers or have "the anti-grapple" (meaning, the ability to fight a well-trained grappler/groundfighter without having to go to the ground) without proof would be lambasted on the site.
Your evaluation of flaming on the forums is a subjective one - in fact, I could argue that flaming may be allowed in almost all forums, but occurs near-exclusively in one or two - the "Bullshido" forum and the "Your Martial Art Sucks" forum. In fact, there are at least two forums where flaming is not allowed under any circumstances - the "Martial Arts History Project" forum and "Newbietown." Given the disparity in hostile behaviors among forums, it is more fair and more concise to say that the conversational tone at the site can be heated and occasionally lapses into flames.
Further, your expressed desire to have an additional 3 sections (Criticism/Characteristics/Controversies) had not only been well-addressed in the article thus far, but it is also an expressed desire with no substantial basis in Wikipedia reality. If you look at the following links to other Wikipedia articles on Internet Forums:
You will see that none of these articles on major Internet forums have the sections you advocate.
In fact, one of the only articles with a "Criticisms" section as you discuss is the "Democratic Underground" article, regarding what's considered to be a high amount of politically motivated censorship and banning. That is far different and far more substantial than people getting flamed for espousing non-popular views on a message board. No one has ever been banned from Bullshido.net unless they have attempted to damage or ruin the site in some way, such as spamming, attempting to hack it, or repeatedly posting non-relevant content in the wrong forums after several warnings.
Given the lack of relevant, substantiated disagreement with the content of the article and the fact that many of the issues with the article have already been addressed, I am again removing the NPOV template. As with any content posted on Wikipedia, changes or additions will be scrutinized for adherence to the site's policies. --Scb steve 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


The fact that there is still significant discussions about the neutrality of the site justifies keeping the flag. As I have already mentioned, the entire article other than a few minor edits has been written by bullshido staff members and approved by the owner, and there have been objections raised to this. Until significant content is added by non-bullshido representatives to incorporate information about the site from a non-member's perspective, the article will continue to have its neutrality questioned.Triune 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article has been written in an appropriate fashion by several editors and in at least one instance with the user FWBOArticle, had significant anti-Bullshido, non-member made that resulted in the neutral language that currently exists. The only "significant" discussion raised has come about in recent days by members of a forum recently criticized by Bullshido members; Wikipedia admins have already voted to keep this article with the language intact as it was before recent edits. Your desires for significant content by non-members has already been taken care of. Not to mention that someone making edits as a who is not a member of the forum does not give them an inherently more neutral perspective.
You have had MULTIPLE opportunities to present more substantial evidence to bolster your claims, yet cannot or will not do so. Your reference to "significant discussion of neutrality" is utter nonsense, as no significant discussion has occurred; only significant disagreement. You can't have a discussion without proof of your claims, which you and others have neglected to supply. Therefore, this is pointless, unsubstantiated bickering, and again the template will be removed. --Scb steve 13:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no claims to be answered to here; it is simply a question of loaded words and ALL criticism being channelled into a few weak sentence and an external link that doesn't argue about the site itself rather than its main viewpoints.
Let me quote the loaded words that are used as criticism. "Scorn is heaped upon claims which lack verifiable documentation and upon claimants who refuse to answer challenges in competition." (ohhhh; so you don't consider this criticism? So where is the criticism then?) "Bullshido.net members who espouse opinions or perspectives in strong opposition to another member's views may result in heated, uncensored discussion that can lead to flaming." (again, this is turned to sound like a good thing; as if flaming was an indication of frank discussion.)
There is considerable criticism about the subject matter, much more than is adressed by those few sentences; there is no reason why it shouldn't have a criticism section.
It should also be noted in the article: that throwdown videos are carefully selected and edited, which could give a false impression of the average skill level of the attending people. That Ashida Kim was a very well known fraud before Bullshido.net members did anything about him.
It should address subjective criticism in a way comparable to this: "Critics consider the website to have a low signal-to-noise ratio". Note the Critics consider; this is the true way to write a NPOV article; by aknowledging alternate viewpoints and stating them as such.
I have asked for mediation from the Mediation Cabal. The mediation page is there: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-17 Bullshido.net
Until that is resolved, up goes the NPOV dispute flag.--Guizzy 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Wikipedia staff will be getting involved to mediate, I'll let them decide the status of the NPOV.
You give an interpretation of sentences that does not stand to reasonable speculation. The sentence regarding flaming clearly indicates that members who have a polar opposite view of other member(s) can expect "heated, uncensored discussion that can lead to flaming." Your interpretation of that sentence as "flaming = good" is your own. Had the sentence read something like "People who espouse strong opinions in opposition to another member's views are appropriately flamed", the inclusion of "appropriate" as a value judgment would make it non-neutral and necessary to change.
The necessity of a criticism section will be brought up when you or others decide to stop saying it should be created and you actually put up material that might be considered worthwhile for such a section. However, as indicated, 4 out of 5 articles on Wikipedia concerning large Internet forums have no such section, and the one that does has such criticism based on politically significant motivations.
Regarding Ashida Kim, the article makes no claims that Bullshido.net was the sole contributor to denouncing Kim as a fraud. The article only states the three notable actions against Kim that only Bullshido.net did - challenge him to his own $10,000 challenge, conclusively determine his real name, and bust his belt factory scheme open. These are unique, notable accomplishments that Bullshido accomplished. If you have notable evidence that other sites helped bust Ashida Kim for being a fraud, then the Ashida Kim article would be the place to put such evidence to enhance that article.
Regarding Throwdown videos, there is hardly the level of selection and scrutiny you allege. Most videos are uploaded by the Throwdown participants themselves and posted on the board for member consumption. I cannot think of a single case where Phrost or other staff members have removed links or references to throwdown vids out of concerns of quality. On the other hand, the receipt of a "Throwdown Fist" is something that's given out based on staff evaluation of sparring intensity and martial ability. However, that's not the primary intent of throwdowns and is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article.
Your desire to include the subjective criticism as stated doesn't abide by Wiki policy - even subjective evaluations have to be substantiated by proof. For example, one could criticize the popularity of the site by using Alexa ranks and other objective means of evaluating popularity; one could criticize the quality of evidence provided for an article by noting that it is contradicted by a more accurate, authoritative source (a tabloid vs. a peer reviewed journal). The existence of critics doesn't make their criticism noteworthy or worth including. For example, criticism of somethingawful for their anti-furry stance or their highly inflammatory remarks about a number of topics has no place either on the site article or their forum's article, except for a link in external links (very similar to the current Bullshido.net article).
Also note that even the highly controversial Stormfront (website) and its controversies section revolves around things that hit national news or extreme censorship on part of the mods. There's no inclusion of stuff such as "Critics consider Stormfront to be an inaccurate source of information on anthropology or cultural studies." Similarly, including criticism such as "Critics don't consider Bullshido.net to be an accurate adjucator of martial relevance" would be utterly ridiculous and out of line with Wikipedia convention. --Scb steve 16:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Talk of 'Cherry Picking' negative comments on other web sites noted. I take it there is some 'Cherry Picking' of positive comments on other websites of note by either party? I'd note that Bullshido is riper for harvesting negativity to it's competitors as regards MA foums, than they are by return. You can see that as a "they're right, everyone else is wrong" kind of thing, or that they seek to manipulate popular thinking. Is there some way of quantifying that their approach to topics discussed on competitive forums is any more productive? I ask, as that is what is implied, and seems a core issue.

You make two specific claims: That Bullshido asserts that their views are the only correct ones, and that they attempt to manipulate popular thinking. You also raise a question of if Bullshido's "no-holds-barred" method is "more productive."
Bullshido has a clearly stated value judgment and philosophy that empirical proof is necessary for the claims of anyone to be considered, regardless of the topic or issue. That goes for non-martial discussion as well. If Bullshido makes any assertion about the views and values supported by the site, it's that those views/values are substantiated by empirical evidence and other standards of proof as much as possible. This can include video evidence of topics discussed, commentary by verifiable experts (such as highly ranked practitioners of a specific martial art or fighting style), legal proof, etc. This is a far cry different from the dichotomy you try to paint the site with of "We're right, you're wrong."
Regarding the issue of "manipulating popular thinking," you're using a highly biased term to refer to Bullshido's advocacy work to root out fradulent figures and practices in the martial arts. Did Bullshido "manipulate" people's views on Ashida Kim by proving beyond doubt that he wouldn't even take up his own challenge? Of course not; people could readily come to that conclusion by voluminous evidence that any reasonable person could understand. Bullshido's mission and methods involve presenting reputable, substantiated investigations and allowing people to come to their own conclusions.
The issue of whether or not Bullshido's more volatile atmosphere for discussing martial arts topics is beneficial or harmful to discourse is irrelevant. The article makes no claims of superiority or inferiority on this topic; it reflects that Bullshido contains less censorship and less restrictions on the behavior of members compared to other sites. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not this is good, and is not a topic for what should be a value-free article. Including a blurb like "However, some people question the value of unrestricted speech in discussing martial arts topics" is ridiculous, out of line with Wikipedia policy, and compromises neutral POV by injecting value judgments into the article. --Scb steve 22:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

This article is in dispute and Guizzy has asked for mediation. I am willing to mediate the discussion. If you wish to add to the discussion please go here.

I would ask that no-one edits the article anymore until the dsiscussion is resolved so that this does not descend into an edit war. --Tmorton166 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. I will make the appropriate responses to whatever Guizzy, Triune, or others may wish to bring up. --Scb steve 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How long do these mediation thingies usually take? Does it depend on Guizzy or Triune actually backing up their desires to make edits, or what?
Yes we really need another side to make it a discussion :D. Guizzy has not yet replied either here or on the case page. I will leave a note in his talk space -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. There has been close to 5 days for anyone to raise substantial issues with the current POV of the article, and nothing has been written. I'm removing the template. --Scb steve 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed there has been bo response from Guizzy. I will close the mediation request too. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your help in this matter. Sorry it wasn't more productive. --Scb steve 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits for "greater neutrality"

I've seen the messages on my user pages and the repeated edits applied to this article.

There have been repeated attempts to remove the notable fact that Bullshido.net is one of the most popular martial arts sites on the Internet. This can be verified through Alexa and BigBoard ratings.

The next edit concerns Bullshido's purpose. The site is unequivocally oriented towards the stated goal of rooting out fraud in martial arts. This isn't something the mods or the owner says; it's how the site is constructed and its main activities. Implying that this purpose is only stated is an inaccurate portrayal of the site.

Further, several attempts to include material such as "In the opinion of bullshido members, etc." This is an encyclopedic entry about a particular website. If the article says that someone is found fradulent or lacking, we shouldn't assume it's by someone else; it's by the website in discussion. Hence, adding " in the opinion of the bullshido.net members" is an unnecessary redundancy.

The modification concerning flaming eliminates a notable feature of BS.net - that it is a neutral ground for other sites to discuss certain matters that cannot be discussed there. Most other sites have far more restrictive rules, official and unofficial, than BS.net. Further, no one has ever been banned for disagreeing with the mods over anything. Everyone banned on the site violated rules such as "no spamming" or repeatedly posting irrelevant content after being warned not to do so. You can visit the "Mad Cow Quarantine" subforum for further information on specific reasons for banning. Again, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN BANNED FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE STAFF OF BS.NET

There is also the notable deletion of how Bullshido conducts its inquiries and investigation and how it deals with certain topics like pseudoscientific claims.

I agree that the site could do a better job of representing/displaying its values and guidelines, and that is something being done at the moment. Upon completion, there will be adequate citation within this article for greater benefit. --Scb steve 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like what you say about more citation coming. I don't think that it is clear that this website's purpose is to root out "bs" in the martial arts. If you go to the site, it seems to me the purpose is to promote UFC-type competitions and denegrate just about everything else except for Brazillian JJ.
You make a good point about the redundancy of saying, "... in the opinion of the bullshido.net members...", but I think a simple phrase like, "They believe that..." might be OK, otherwise it seems that this group are the sole judges of what is and what is not bullshido. It comes on too strong, I think, in that regard.

Why don't you make another draft of this article so it sounds less like an ad. Are you objective enough to see it reads that way and not at all like an encyclopedic entry? If I found this article in an encylopedia I would return it to the store. Why is it so long and self-important?

How about this: Bullshido.net is a website focused on rooting out possible b.s. in the martial arts. It is controversial.

)

Flashlock 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Made edits. --Scb steve 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Like the new version, but would it be worth reincluding the school review under the .com section? Also would a redirect form Bullshido.com be sensible? Nate1481 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Great! Much improved.
Flashlock 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

  • Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? The ones listed right now are trivial at best and only mention the site in passing. Wickethewok 20:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So you mean the same reliable, independent sources that [Trinidad_and_Tobago_Online_Community], [Christian_Forums], and numerous other forums listed without issue in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_forums ??? Even 4chan, unarguably one of the most popular sites on the Internet, had no mainstream media references prior to a bomb threat made by one of its members. Whereas, Bullshido.net has two direct, contemporary reference in a mainstream media outlet: Charlotte Observer regarding David "Race" Bannon and one in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (January 24th, 2004) in an article about Jim Arvanitis and his resurrected Pankration(source: [1]). Or if you'd prefer, link to a page for full purchase of the article [2] These references were about the activities of the site, not some ancillary involvement where someone used the site for mischief or unrelated purpose to its mission.
Slideyfoot may have even more references, as he's more up to speed on media references to the site. --Scb steve 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To be specific:
1. 'It's Greek to him', Thomas Becnel, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 24th January 2004 - e.g., "At the bullshido.com Web site, 'dedicated to exposing fraud and b.s. in the martial arts,' anonymous contributors rage back and forth. It's no-holds-barred debate. For example: 'Hellenic, Schmellenic. Nobody denies what the classical pankratists were probably capable of. But Jim Arvanitis re- invented 'pankration' by scraping together odds and ends from multiple systems. His bios all say as much. The living tradition of pankration is a thread that snapped many centuries ago.'
Arvanitis shrugs off this kind of criticism. His days of having to prove himself are over."
2. 'Attorney dismisses accounts as fiction', Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News, 25th February 2006 - e.g., "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years."
3. 'The man who lied about everything', Tommy Tomlinson, Charlotte Observer, 25th June 2006 - e.g., "A Connecticut lawyer named Samuel Browning runs a Web site called Bullshido.net, which exposes people who inflate their martial arts credentials." (though as Steve mentioned earlier, the site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning) Slideyfoot 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/l/Talk%7EBullshido.net_0773.html"