Talk:Phil Elmore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've removed some more of the more obviously self-advertising material, and removed the unsubstantiated claim that he's controversial. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've again removed the self-advertising, the description of him as a pundit, and a link to a tiny discussion board, relvant (if at all) to 'martialism'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the FAQ critical of Phil Elmore and his website being removed constantly? Since this entry was created by Phil Elmore himself to plug his website and authoring services/book it's only fair to present what others have to say.

I would have left this person be except for the fact that the first thing they did (after creating their own entry) was spam the Martial Arts links with their own (commercial I might add) website selling subscriptions. I think this entry should be deleted.

The critical FAQ is relevant to the martialism article and is included there.

The deleted quote from this entry:

"You on the other hand barely train and are viewed by your former and present instructor AND former and present classmates as a dead rank beginner with VERY LITTLE skill or real life experience... despite your "15 years" in martial arts." - Sifu Anthony Iglesias responding to Phil's new book on martial arts.

Was posted on Phil's private forum publicly by his old Wing Chun instructor Anthony Iglesias who teaches at the Syracuse Wing Chun Academy. There was a very long thread about Phil's new book. His instructor was letting people know his displeasure in Phil's choice of trying to promote himself as an expert on self-defense when he clearly has very little actual knowledge or skills.

This posting and subsequent others were later deleted by Phil or by his former instructor or both. This thread originally appeared here:

http://www.paxbaculum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1794

Follow up discussion occurred at the Bullshido website where captured postings before deletion have been archived here:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23973


A response to the quote in question can be found here:

http://www.shorthandemptyhand.com/questions.htm

The question now becomes, does this belong in the article? If it is included, the response should be included; does this back and forth editorializing constitute objective NPOV information that should be part of the body of the piece?

I find it very difficult to follow what's going on above, becasue comments have been added with no signatures, thus with no date ordering, or even guide as to where one message stops and the next starts. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of this discussion is irrelevant to the article anyway, representing nothing more than bickering among philosophically opposed martial groups.

It's not irrelevant actually. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it an advertising medium for questionable products and services? The martial arts contains so many frauds and incompetent practitioners already that I don't think Wikipedia should be engaged in providing a sounding board for any more of them. The evidence that this individual is using this entry for personal profiteering and promoting self-defense advice that has been debunked not only by other experienced fighters but also his own former instructor is clear. Why exactly is Wikipedia obligated to provide a place for this activity?

Bickering between a teacher and a former student is hardly worth of inclusion in the article; it adds nothing substantive and gives the article an air of politicking. There are two sides to any story and both should be presented. What is "clear' is that the man has both supporters AND detractors.

Contents

[edit] RfC

I've placed this at RfC; we'll see if it gets any useful outside opinions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel, in your comment on the RfC you indicated that you thought this version -- the one you copyedited -- was "anti-Elmore," but it seems fair and balanced to me. For every criticism, balancing rebuttal is offered.

  1. Please 'sign' your comments (with four tildes: "~").
  2. The style and tone seems to me to be anti-Elmore; the list of criticisms, whether or not followed by references to rebuttals, give a negative impression. Still, we'll see what other editors think — they might well disagree with me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has gone from a vanity piece to a rambling self-congratulatory diatribe edited by Phil Elmore himself. Time to put this thing up for a vote for deletion. It's simply over the top.

Looking at the ip addresses of the most frequent editors, I'd say most of the editing on this page and the main page are from Phil Elmore himself. The last comment about this being "balanced" was certainly from Elmore.

I agree. Doesn't this also violate the Wiki rule of "Don't create articles about yourself" as well?
All evidence points to Phil creating and editing this article himself. Were there a VfD, mine would be to delete. Phil can have his own user page if he choses to participate in Wikipedia. This is blatant self-promotion. --Phrost 18:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. The name of the Gung Fu style looked to me like Bruce Lee's Cantonese screen name Lee Siu Lung and I know that some people call Jun Fan Gung Fu by this name (Lee Siu-Lung Gung Fu). So, this is basically a kuntao system we're talking about here, I gather. (Note: Forgot to sign this originally.) JJL 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear if you're attempting to draw this parallel or not, but if you are trying to draw a parallel between "Lee Siu-Lung" and "Liu Seong Gung Fu," you're mistaken. Liu Seong Gung Fu has nothing to do with Bruce Lee, aside from the assertion that Bruce Lee sought out Liu Seong (Willem Reeders) to learn some amount about his art ("how much" is not a matter that there's common agreement on). (The only reason I'm suspecting that you might be making this leap is because there's no mention of Lee Siu-Lung Gung Fu on this page.) -Erik Harris 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some blatant plugging of Phil's new book, as well as some obvious defensive comments he or his cohorts probably inserted.

That bit at the end about Bullshido seemed pretty biased. I initially made some changes there which were not accepted, so I think we should just keep it out altogether until we can come to a consensus.

I also think the external links section should be condensed. I had done so, but someone evidently was not very happy with that, and changed it back. Suggestions?

I agree that the previous first paragraph was pushing his new book and I think moving it was appropriate. I would remove all the indented entries in the links list, save the last one (response to Bullshido). JJL 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundandy & autobiographical comments

"Many agree with these polemics, while many others do not." --This is a silly, meaningless comment, and is therefore wholly unnecessary. It also sounds like something Phil would write, and, although autobiographical changes are not expressly forbidden, they remain very much undesirable. To boot, it just sounds awkward from a literary perspective.

"like Bullshido, Elmore has been praised and defended by those who agree with him, ridiculed by those who do not," --I think this should be shortened, and the Bullshido reference removed. The article already mentioned that Phil is a source of controversy, and external links include the Bullshido FAQ. It is therefore redundant and unhelpful to readers.

"compared to personalities like Ashida Kim" --Kim is generally considered a scam artist, while Phil is not. Though Phil has indeed been similarly ridiculed on Bullshido, I don't think such criticism should be taken seriously here. This wiki page already has enough anti-Phil commentary, and I think we can do without this bit of name-calling.

"by his own admission," "which he has never claimed to have" & "which he has publicly stated he does not possess" --These are clearly defensive additions, probably written by Phil himself (which as mentioned above is undesirable). The article already establishes that Phil does not have this experience; additional biased commentary is absolutely unwarranted. If anything should be removed, it's these comments.

I would also caution Stephen Mallory to further curb his pro-Phil bias. I'll leave the modified first paragraph for now, but it seems awfully praise-heavy for an encyclopedia article. If anyone else thinks it's too much, feel free to fix it.

== Stephen Mallory Responds == If this article is to be truly NPOV, those statements must be allowed to remain. If we say something is controversial, it makes sense to point out that as many people agree with it as do not.

That is self-evident. The statement is therefore redundant and silly.

It also makes a significant difference if someone has never claimed to have certain credentials as opposed to someone being criticized for not having them and not addressing this. If we're going to say he has been criticized for it, NPOV demands we also balance this by saying he's never claimed to have what he's being criticized for not having. If we're going to allow material claiming his background or training are issues, we must include material explaining what that background and training truly is. Without these inclusions, a negative implication is created, which is POV.

No such implication is created by omitting those obviously biased remarks, which were probably written by Phil himself. If you want to address that issue, write a short paragraph on the importance (or lack thereof) of such experience. I'll do it for you, in fact, and you can modify it as you see fit.
Such an implication is created if you say he has been criticized for not having something he has said repeatedly and publicly that he does NOT have.

As for the references to Bullshido and Ashida Kim, I've spoken with Phil directly about this and he considers it complimentary to have made an enemy of Bullshido and to have them comparing him to Kim. As he told me, "When someone said Ashida Kim was like a thin Phil Elmore, I knew I had made it."

It makes no difference if Phil approves. It is biased, and must therefore be removed.

Leaving the reference to Bullshido in the text is necessary explanatory material because Phil is NOT a frequent topic at other websites; Bullshido is the place he is discussed most frequently. Saying "at websites" is too general and distorts the point being made.

The phrase "at websites" does not make any specific implication, and therefore does not distort the point. On the contrary, "at websites like Bullshido" *is* distortion, precisely because Phil is not discussed at any other website like Bullshido (at least, not with any frequency). He's discussed primarily at paxbaculum.com, and secondarily at bullshido.net. Other websites mention him, but not anywhere near as often as those two. Either use the general "at websites" or use the specific "at paxbaculum and bullshido." "At websites like bullshido" simply will not do.

Also, there is nothing "praise heavy" about the opening paragraph. It is completely factually. Phil Elmore IS an American writer who HAS been published in a variety of on-line and hardcopy publications (both in the United States and abroad), primarily in the field of martial arts. He IS is one of Paladin Press' personalities and IS a prolific contributor to multiple self-defense 'zines and periodicals (you can hardly view one of these online or in print without eventually seeing one of his articles). He DOES promote martialism, he HAS described himself publicly as an Objectivist, and he is probably best known as being an outspoken opponent of pacifism. He DOES attempt to promote "martialism" and the idea HAS failed to gain mainstream acceptance. Where is the "praise?" - S. Mallory

The praise is in the emphasis. However, I will let this slide for the sake of other, more pressing concerns.
This USENET-style response makes things difficult to read. Note that he is also discussed at MartialTalk, where he has his own forum. It seems the back-and-forth changes now are minor differences in phrasing. JJL 15:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The comparison to Ashida Kim is unfair. Phil Elmore uses his own name. To say that as many people praise him as criticize him, however, is hard to defend quantitatively. I see more derision than praise. Pointing out his lack of qualifications is certainly appropriate--it's the usual topic of discussion concerning him. I don't see much bias here. JJL 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And I see more praise than derision. It all depends where you look. For someone to have a successful online magazine with sponors, published work through major publishers, and online notoriety such as Phil Elmore has achieved certainly begs no small amount of praise to go with the derision. I don't see the comparison as unfair if Phil himself considers it valid. Both are arguably successful martial arts personalities who have vocal critics and have published large volumes of work. Like I said, if we are going to point out that he has been criticized on the basis of credentials, that is fine, but we must also include the fact that he has never claimed to have these credentials in the first place. Quite the opposite, in fact: http://www.themartialist.com/credentials.htm - Stephen Mallory


[edit] Appropriateness of storefront links?

I notice that, along with links to publishers' sites (which also sell their own books), there's at least one external link for one of Mr. Elmore's books that appears to go to a bookseller that had no role in creating the book (booklocker.com). Is it appropriate to link to sales sites? It seems a bit inappropriate, since it shows preferential treatment to one vendor over others, and is hardly impartial. -Erik Harris 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Booklocker.com is the PUBLISHER of the book(s) in question. - -User:Stephen Mallory 29 June 2006

[edit] "which, he states, he has never claimed to have"

That sort of disclaimer is obvious POV, as hammered out before. Stephen Mallory's insistence on including it is tantamount to vandalism.


-- Your insistence on POV editing is what is vandalism, "Hurtstotalktoyou." What is POV is NOT including this balancing statement.

The placement of the statement is meant to discredit the preceding assertion, which adds a POV flavor--again, as discussed before. The defense can remain, but in its own place. That way, readers can see the negative, digest it, then see the positive, digest that, and form their own opinion about the issue, if they care to do so. Besides, it doesn't flow from a linguistic standpoint. Claiming I am POV because you don't like my edits just won't fly. --hurtstotalktoyou
You are POV be cause you are biased against Phil Elmore and this is obvious from your edits. The statements are necessary to balance the implication that would otherwise be made, the implication that Elmore has claimed to have such credentials. No citation for the original criticism is even provided, making the balancing text that much more necessary.

--Stephen Mallory

[edit] "An American Writer"

As the introduction stands now, one reading this page might assume Phil Elmore makes a living writing books and articles. He does not. However, we can't just add "amateur" to the opening statement, as it would sound distinctly negative (and therefore POV). What would be nice is to include his primary occupation in the paragraph--except that I'm not sure what that is. Perhaps in absence of that, we could call him "an aspiring American writer." Suggestions?--Hurtstotalktoyou 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Biased Editor

Your continued attempts to spin what was a balanced article into a negative hit piece on Elmore are blatant and inappropriate, "Hurtstotalktoyou." The man DOES make a living writing and his writing is the reason anyone reading this would be familiar with him. Someone who has been published more than once (and we are not talking about self-published fiction, but Elmore's Paladin Press work and his articles in magazines like Concealed Carry and Filipino Martial Arts Digest) is not an ASPIRING writer at all, but a writer, period.

As for the parenthetical statements addressing the UNCITED criticisms about Elmore's martial arts experience, they are necessary to BALANCE this UNCITED criticism. The criticism implies that he has claimed to have these credentials and has been criticized for lacking them, which is clearly not the case.

First of all, I did not change anything in the article about him not making a living writing original material. I was merely proposing we include that information in the introduction. That does not make me a "biased editor." I am almost positive he has a different career, and that writing, though he does get paid for it on occasion, is not his primary source of income.
Second, we've discussed the parentheticals before, and you agreed not to include them. Why you suddenly think they are NPOV again is beyond me. I'm not saying you can't include that information, but the way it is presented, as I've told you before repeatedly, smacks of POV.
Thirdly, although I do have my own opinions about Elmore (as most familiar with him do), I am not a POV editor. My edits here are largely that of form. From where I sit, this page is horribly written, with awkward language and a mishmash of random information. It needs to read professionally and flow sensibly, in addition to maintaining accuracy. In any case, you seem to accuse everyone else of bias without acknowledging your own. This is unacceptable. You have a habit of trigger-happy reversion, a practice to be avoided if possible and especially not abused, and your contribution history to wikipedia is, unless I'm mistaken, exclusively devoted to Elmore-related pages. Given the paxbaculum community's general distaste for wikipedia, this is not surprising. I suspect you are here only to paint Elmore as positively as possible, rather than simply sticking to the facts.
If we cannot resolve these disputes, I will be forced to initiate third-party involvement. If you persist in frequent reversions and POV tampering, you may find yourself banned from editing at all. If I recall correctly, that is what happened to Elmore himself. I strongly urge you to curb your personal beliefs and try to look at the issues from a greater distance.--Hurtstotalktoyou 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dust Clears

You appear, to me, to be here to paint the man as negatively as possible. The article has now been formatted and the initial opening introduces Phil Elmore accurately, using the precise text from the man's public statements about his profession. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary this is the appropriate description.

[edit] POV tags

"1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future. "2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!) "3. If the issues seem to be suitably resolved, remove the tag. "4. Don't get involved in a revert war." --[[1]]

[edit] P OV Issues Resolved

The issues should be substantially resolved in the latest round of edits.

[edit] POV issues

As I see it, here are the primary POV issues:

1) Parentheticals justifying Elmore's lack of experience are inappropriately placed. While the information deserves to be here, the language used to convey it seems very POV to me. Whether I rewrite it or someone else does, it [i]needs[/i] to be rewritten. UPDATE: This has been resolved. However, a new issue involving the partial removal of instructor commentary (only those critical of Elmore were removed) has been created.

2) "Martialism" is not "dynamic, assertive living." Elmore may have used those words to describe it, but that is not the whole of the definition, as anyone can plainly see. Also, Elmore's spin on the term and the traditional definition are quite different, a fact which if left out gives readers a false impression.

3) The overall language of the article seems at times to be biased against Elmore, and at other times to be biased in favor. Lines like, "He does appear, however, to have a sense of humor," "receives as much criticism as he does praise depending on where the reader searches" and "the prolific Elmore" are, especially given their frequency, unacceptable. The parentheticals mentioned in point #1 above are the most extreme example of this.

4) Neither Elmore's science fiction writing nor his real career is discussed.

5) Elmore's scholastic achievements are not discussed. Given that he has little or nothing to be embarrassed about, here, I'm not sure why the subject is avoided by the likes of Stephen Mallory.

[edit] Article Completely Rewritten

Watching the two of you argue I have gone and rewritten the entire thing, taking out most or all of the editorializing and limiting to the article to those things that can be cited back to sources (most frequently Phil Elmore's websites). Thanks, Combat Paw (Russ Wheeler)

Thanks for helping out. I haven't checked the content yet, but I will, soon. Also, just to clarify, no "revert war" was ever in progress. I don't revert unless absolutely necessary. Stephen Mallory is the one who reverts on a whim. It's very frustrating, and I think he should be banned from wikipedia unless he can curb his nasty tendencies.--Hurtstotalktoyou 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That is overstating the case I think. You don't like Phil Elmore and Mallory does. This is easy to see from the outside. - Russ

[edit] Neutrality Restored

I agree with Russ Wheeler's edits, which reduced the article to only those points that could be cited. "Hurtstotalktoyou" has introduced several editorialized points and these have been removed and will be removed every time they appear. You cannot change a sentence like "his opinions are arguably controversial" to one that reads "his opinions have proven controversial." The first is a neutral statement with which most people could easily agree and the second asserts "proof" for soemthing that wuld be almost impossible to prove. "Hurtstotalktoyou" should be banned from Wikipedia unless he can curb his nasty tendencies.

About citations: Pretty much everything here comes from Phil's websites (themartialist.com, philelmore.com, paxbaculum.com). These are apparently acceptable for this article, where they would not cut the mustard elsewhere. I have not introduced any "editorialized points," but rather have simply repeated what I found on said websites. It should be noted that all sites in question are pro-Phil, where I am being accused of an anti-Phil bias. As far as the controversy goes, that was not my insertion. Someone else wrote that, which was changed by Mallory to read "arguably," which is absurd. The guy is, as the article states, discussed all the time on message boards, and this discussion revolves around--you guessed it--his controversial opinions and behavior. It deserves mention in the article. Perhaps "proven" gives an undue emphasis, but "arguably" is even more ridiculous. Stephen Mallory has reverted nearly every one of my edits. I'm sick of it. Until now I have resisted simple reversion, but I'm afraid there's nothing else I can do. Hand-cleaning just takes too much of my time. I will seek a third-party resolution very soon, but in the mean time I will revert with freedom, as Mallory so boldly has for all time.--Hurtstotalktoyou 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and Their Nature

There's nothing ridiculous about "arguably" that I can see. It's a neutral term to describe the very controversy you're trying to cite. You need to calm down and try to see this neutrally. You've admitted you used undue emphasis. I've created a new section addressing the self-defense instruction issue and made it as neutral as is possible.

As for where the citations come from, the most objective descriptions of what the subject of the article thinks and has said ought to come directly from what he's publicly said. This isn't pro- or anti-Phil; it is just a reporting of the facts. I have stayed away from any real statements of opinion and I have stuck to the most generally accepted definitions of why he is notable enough to be in the Wikipedia at all. They aren't quotes that say things like, "Phil Elmore says he is cool, because he is," with a citation back to him. Rather, they say, "Phil Elmore has said what are arguably controversial things," and here they are.

I also cleaned up the back and forth over the opening discussion of martialism. You earlier quoted "total aggression," but nowhere in the cited PDF article does this phrase appear except in quotes itself. I did the research and I think it is accurately quoted now.

I see this article as fair and neutral. It presents why Phil Elmore is a topic of discussion and also presents in an even way both sides of opinoins about him, without leaning to hard either way in citing this.

[edit] Mainstream Acceptance

Hurtstotalktoyou, you keep changing the opening paragraph and Mallory keeps changing it back. I have to agree with him on this, though. There is no universally accepted standard whereby the whole of someone's self-defense opinions can be said to have or not have "mainstream acceptance." Also, you are quoting inaccurately what the PDF file I researched says about "total aggression." I strongly recommend we use the paragraph as I wrote it. It is more NPOV than your change.

It's tough to make changes when Mallory is reverting while I do so. I will check it out, though.--Hurtstotalktoyou 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check, Please

I think you will find my version addresses the issue neutrally. You need to step away from this, I think, in order to see it more calmly.

[edit] Mediation talks begun

See [2] for details.

[edit] Total Aggression

Hurts, you've incorrectly attributed the term "total aggression" to Phil Elmore. If you read the PDF file that I cited as the source for my edit, it reads like this:

I once read a discussion among several martial artists, one of whom cited this quote. He asked of the others the question, “Does this point to underlying fear?” A number of individuals responded in the affirmative. The attitude expressed by the quote was indeed very fearful, they opined. It was not a realistic attitude. It betrayed an ignorance of the Budo, the Japanese martial way that was what most of them claimed to study. The quote was, they asserted, an attitude exemplified by the infamous fictional Karate instructor portrayed by Martin Kove in The Karate Kid.

One participant to the discussion said that he felt sorry for those who imagined their lives were in constant danger. Another said that he felt sorry for those whose arts demanded “total aggression.” He wondered if a fighter who failed to feel such aggression would simply fail and die.

Still other respondents speculated that such a philosophy would prompt the fighter to leave himself open or to tire himself prematurely, while one or two wondered who or what grants the individual the “moral authority” to use lethal force against another person. Martial arts instructors who promote such attitudes of total aggression were called “naïve.” Those who agree with such a philosophy were presumed to suffer from low self-esteem, a lack of confidence, or the inability to exercise judgment in the face of an assault.

I did a search in acrobat and the term "total aggression" appears nowhere else in the document. "Total Aggression" is used by 'others' to describe Elmore's interpretation of the philosophy. I have to disagree with you here and hope you will concur when examining the evidence. If you are as objective as you say you are trying to be, the only correct interpretation is that Elmore admits others have characterized his interpretation of martialism as "total aggression."

Quite right. My mistake.--Hurtstotalktoyou 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article as it now reads is accurate and fair. -- Stephen Mallory

[edit] Martial Arts Experience Quotes

The article takes as one of its central points the idea that Phil Elmore's opinions are controversial. If this is true and his martial arts experience is an issue, the article must include balancing statements about that experience. The article includes one very negative quote from a traditional, recognized instructor (see source), one article that is relatively neutral ("average to above average") from an unrecognized, nontraditional instructor (again, see source), and one positive quote from a traditional, recognized instructor. Removing either the first or the last quote is unacceptable for POV reasons. I would argue that removing the middle quote would also detract from the neutral POV of the article, but if any of the three quotes can go, that is the only one I would recommend.

[edit] What Gives, HurtsToTalkToYou?

We agreed on the language of the article before. Why did you make all kinds of non-neutral changes? The user who reverted the page is part of the countervandalism unit. I agree with his reversion.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhil_Elmore_6ac8.html"