Talk:Model Mugging

Potential conflict of interest alert

Potential conflict of interest alert: I did not create the article found here, but I have begun to add material to it. However, I am a director and board secretary of Impact Bay Area, an organization that teaches model mugging. I hope to add to and clarify the usage of the terms "model mugging" and "Impact", provide neutral descrpitons of the terms and techniques embodied in "model mugging", and am also researching the history of model mugging and hope to include more information on same. It is not my intent to advertise my organization in particular, but I also realize that, like anyone involved in model mugging, I bring a potential bias to my thinking about the subject. Because I recognize the ptotential for a conflict of interest there, I welcome and encourage any appropriate criticism to my contributions. Joe Decker 13:17, 11 Mar 2005 (Update: While I no longer work at Impact, I still believe that the conflict-of-interest notice is worth keeping up. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

I have edited this so it is more neutral to the Model Mugging technique, and respects those different people who are using this technique around the world. Fer (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission to post copyright material given

Permission has been given to post history info from http://www.impactbayarea.org/impact.php?About/history3.html given by Joe Decker, Secretary and Board of Director, Impact Bay Area in email of Friday, March 11, 2005 1:27 PM Petersam 04:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fixes and Suggestions

• Generally wikipedia does not like external links within the article so I converted it to the prefered inline citations.
• If the site is in the references it should not be under the external links (so I removed the Bay area site).
• External Links should be one or two that add to the overall article. I would suggest trimming to perhaps one that gives a list of all locations. Maybe even getting rid of the section entirely and including a statement where the program has spread to with an appropriate citation.
• It is not enough to say you have permission - there is a complicated proceedure to go through and until then it is a copyright violation. I would just rewrite that small paragraph (in your own words). The reference takes you to the original in any case.

Hope this helps.Peter Rehse 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Those are all great suggestions. I have implemented your third suggestion of linking to a list of chapters (actually, two overlapping but non-equivalent lists) rather than making a chapter list. --Joe Decker 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

It looks like very much of this article (at least the beginning) is very much a copy of the material found at http://www.modelmugging.org/evolution.htm (and cited in the first reference).

Have the proper procedures been followed to get the permission of the copyright holder? (I mean, afaik, such permission is required in addition to citing the source.)

Rhkramer (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Matt Thomas?

The Matt Thomas in Wikipedia is not the Matt Thomas of Model Mugging, so I've removed the internal link in the article. Does anyone know enough about the relevant Matt Thomas to start an article? 75.15.158.143 (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a entry for Matt Thomas (martial artist), the founder of Model Mugging with references. Fer (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Why is this marked speedy delete? The earlier discussion this month was to keep, not delete. Petersam (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin section was taken from http://www.modelmugging.org/evolution.htm. That section has been removed due to copyright issues. Original History section of 2 Feb 08 has been returned. Petersam (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Added refs

I think in the past few years a lot more resources have become available via Google Books, etc., I've added some additional citations. I have no doubt that in some sense I've overly-referenced the article, but there's enough material through the links to support potential future expansion of this article, so I think it's a good groundwork. Despite having left my involvement with a Model Mugging chapter some years back, I still suspect I'm not the right person to actually take on that expansion, but I figure adding a few refs can't hurt. Have a great day. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

The IP repeatedly removing the material was partially right, in a sense. The "allegations of sexual misconduct" part of the source is an accusation by a person in the first part of the article, while the creation of separate programs is mentioned in the second part, but as a result of "swagger" in the Model mugging program and whatnot. So there's no problem adding that to the article with the same citation, as long as we say what the source says. Also, going back to the (serious) allegations, I would omit them from the article given they are direct accusations from one person to the founder of the program and are not particularly central to the story. Unless we get some supporting sources, that's just hearsay reported by a single source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll edit and re-include Nefariousski (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have zero desire to get into anything that can be misconstrued as an edit war here. I complied with your initial request and used the same wording and context as the article in my edits, you proceeded to change them to overly vague wording that borders on going against guidance given in WP:WEASEL. The article referenced clearly shows that there is one named woman and other unnamed women who have made accusations against various staff including the founder who is named. When a woman makes a statement in a national publication about being sexually assaulted and names the assailant(s) that is an accusation. There's no need to round the edges on the word. There is no reason to not include this information in the article since it is very clearly and unambiguously listed in the source material. The source isn't in question here, whether it be one person making a sexual assault accusation or 2 people making a sexual assault accusation or 100 people making a sexual assault accusation doesn't change the fact that a sexual assault accusation has been made.Nefariousski (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

changing publicity to academic research

There is no encyclopedic value in listing a "publicity" section per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The relevant info will be rolled into a "academic research" but we don't need to just randomly list a bunch of different magazines that mention "Model Mugging". Notability has already been established so there is zero value add. Nefariousski (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nefariousski: Agreed. Recently, Wikiipedia-posting has reintroduced the section several times without discussion. He's also gotten rid of the controversy section and placed that information within Publicity, now with a largely positive tone that characterizes those who have criticized the subject in a negative light. I've placed a POV tag while this is resolved. I encourage Wikiipedia-posting to discuss these changes instead of continuously reverting. ~ Rob^Talk 18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Change of inaccurate material

This has the appearance of whitewashing contentious material. Material that isn't complimentary is perfectly proper if it is cited which this was. Wikipedia is not here to advertise any entity but to provide information - the subjects own website has that advert function. There is some duplication between the publicity section and controversy and there should be a better heading than Publicity which does suggest advertising. I suggest History.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@PRehse: As an FYI, the person removing this section has a claimed COI with this topic. They work for or are otherwise affiliated with the organization: [1] ~ Rob^Talk 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is also pretty clear from the persistent single purpose editing and some of the edit summary comments but lets see if they can understand the thinking behind wikipedia.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikiipedia-posting There is no undue weight in the allegations - a reasonable person would read the allegation in historical context.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There were edit summary comments made with each simplistic 'whitewashing' change, but wiki editors have insisted in posting inaccurate statements that are libel-slanderous. What recourse is there?

"Controversy' is not the right word because the only controversy is what is being made of this now. A training incident that occurred about 30 YEARS AGO was not a sexual assault, and would be classified by the CA penal code (where the incident occurred) at best as a battery. No public issue was made of it even by the activist group, but wiki editors continue to make false allegations by adding other instructors sexually assaulting students that is also false. What is the value added today?

As Rob13 stated, "Text in publicity that casts accusers in a poor light needs close scrutiny" – but then Rob13 continues to violate his own statement with false allegations. That is WRONG, to accuse someone in this manner!

This incident was related to training, and was blown out of proportion by individuals within the Model Mugging organization in the late 1980's who were seeking to take over the organization. This individual and others later formed their own groups demonstrating theft of the training methodologies from the founder.

In June, 2015, Kickinkaratekid added the “controversy” citation in the first place demonstrating affiliation as part of the same group that added Model Mugging originally in 2008 to the wiki data base. Kickinkaratekid, listed a single hearsay article as a “reliable” source that originated out of politically motivation described above. This editor called negative attention by using the word controversy in the title. The hearsay article-source is loaded with twisted and inaccurate information that is obviously not a NPOV.

How can an editor list a negative source without listing any of the hundred plus positive articles written about the program, even from the same era? The Jones writer was fueled by one of the Model Mugging separatist instructors who bragged about meeting with her for 5 hours, but is not quoted once in the article. That same separatist instructor also created the conflict with the SWOPSI group of women in the first place after he took over the Stanford program from the founder. The founder was not actively teaching at the time. He had donated time and equipment for seven years prior without any negative incidents or “controversy”.

Changing “publicity” to “history” is an acceptable word and eliminating separate controversy heading because 'controversy' inaccurately takes the incident out of the “reasonable historical context”. The hearsay source is still listed in the body of the text within the approximate context from which it occurred. It is not really accurate because there is a lot more to the story. The change was made.

Time would be better spent helping others than dealing with slander-libel haters, who would find more happiness doing positive work instead of making a "controversy" over something that occurred over a generation ago. What controversy exists now?

We look forward to helping thousands more people find strength in their lives through realistic options.

Time taken to deal with this dispute is being wasted. Consequently, the only ones winning right now are the criminals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiipedia-posting (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 September 2015‎

I've re-added the content you removed. A featured article in a major publication accusing the organization of wrongdoing is worth a mention. Wikipedia reports historical information, not just what has happened right now. I have, however, kept it under the history heading to avoid using the title of controversy, as that was a valid concern. Please note that this change would have occurred much earlier if you had discussed your issues with the article on the talk page from the start instead of reverting without discussion. So far, three experienced editors have supported the coverage of this content in the article, and only one editor (you) with a claimed affiliation with this organization has opposed it. There is consensus at this time to keep the information in the article. Please do not act against this consensus without further discussion. Again, I urge you to review WP:COI as well as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OWN, and WP:V for important information on how Wikipedia works. In particular, the subject of the article does not dictate what may be contained in it. We merely repeat what is covered in reliable sources, both positive and negative. ~ Rob^Talk 00:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BU ROB13 - You are discrediting Wikipedia by supporting tabloid journalism, and then personally attacking me and those who have helped so many people.

You demonstrate reasonableness, which is why I took the time to write this.

You are attacking me and other instructors, as well as the organization with your version and deletions of the latest post that you made to the page. Consequently, my comments are directed at you.

You write, “Female instructors stated that women were traumatized by the course or sexually assaulted by Model Mugging male instructors including founder Matt Thomas. These accusations led to multiple female instructors breaking from the group to form their own self-defense organizations.”

The female “instructors” mentioned in the article, were not qualified instructors but students teaching students, which is why training was requested by the founder in the first place.

Your claim that “three experienced editors have supported the coverage” is false when Free Ranger writes – “I'd leave out the sexual assault part unless you can find a source that isn't a single person accusing another person”.

Nowhere in the article is the term, “sexual assault” written, but yet wiki writers and then editors have also fabricated this as a fact. Wikipedia page on sexual assault could use some work, but in the second paragraph it does properly state that definitions are up to each jurisdiction. My edit stayed within correct definitions of what and the state where the training event occurred.

You also write “A featured article in a major publication”, but you are basing your credibility on Peri, who writes lies on top of rumors – recommend reading wiki - Tabloid Journalism.

To Peri’s credit, at least she states her arguments are based on rumors. But perpetuating rumors is not investigative journalism, but sensationalism or tabloid journalism, and is slander-libel - lying.

You are supporting an article based on spreading rumors, misquotes, inaccuracies, and lying. The problem with lying, is that anything thereafter is in doubt whereby constantly raising the questions, are you “lying now, or were you lying then?” Any quote Peri uses, one has to wonder if she is twisting and fabricating. Did Peri twist and fabricate, and omit the words of all those she interviewed and instead wrote “rumors” because she could not confirm the truth?

Peri writes, “The staff of Women Defending Ourselves had finally begun to feel empowered, but it was a passive sort of empowerment, based on whispers and rumor campaigns instead of direct confrontation.” Peri does not list the staff writer’s name (is this a real, fictional person, or is the staff writer Peri?), but at least she summarizes the content and purpose of her article. Factual - there was a rumor/smear campaign conducted by WDO, which lends support for Peri’s sentence. Overall, Peri confirms that the rumor spreading, which is libel-slanderous behavior on her part and the “major publication” as you called it.

So why are Wikipedia editors so dedicated on using an article based on rumors, misfacts, and lies as a reliable source? This discredits Wikipedia writers, to include yourself.

Your statement - “Accusing the organization of wrongdoing is worth a mention.” We already addressed the accusation as a rumor. The edits I made kept this article, but within context that the issue originated, which was political, deceptive, and theft of intellectual property against the founder.

Within an awkwardly written paragraph, Peri summarizes, “according to one rumor, the men were convicted rapists serving out their time as instructors.” Really?

In reality, Model Mugging instructors who put themselves in the kill zone fight after fight, being struck full force so others can develop real-world experiences and not have to fight by better avoiding danger. Instructors sweat out a gallon of fluid during class causing extreme electrolyte imbalances, body temperatures that reach dangerous levels of 104 degrees whereby a few of whom have needed hospital attention for heat exhaustion. Instructors receive contusions regularly to light padded non-vital areas, risking or have had broken bones. Additionally, female instructors work at overcoming their fears of the topic/threat, demonstrate the skills risking personal injuries, and work hard to support students.

You want to accuse the organization of wrong doing relying on rumors, lies and misstatements as a reliable source? I question you personally – do you really know what it is like to help someone?

Whereby the help you offer may result in your own death or serious injury? Well, I have on numerous ways, not just with Model Mugging. So has the founder.

I do not know if I could have done what the founder did creating the program. Inspirational credit needs to be given to him for even experimenting with body armor and full force self-defense. For the first 12 years, when he was wrong moving during the fights, he was injured or knocked unconscious. Fortunately improvements were made to protective armor preventing most injuries. Serious injury is very rare, but other dangers still exist.

To see the transformation in students in just a short time, a weekend, where students leave with glowing aura and beaming smiles, makes every hit worth taking. Knowing they have the confidence to say no, and possess more options to realistically avoid danger, is worth it. When women 10, 20, and 30 years later say thank you followed by describing how the course made such a powerful effect on their lives. And you call us rapists.

You perpetuate rumors and lies that may influence a potential student from not taking the course who lives in terror every day with debilitating inner turmoil, or is raped because she does not have skills she otherwise would have had and could have avoided the assault.

Congratulations! That is really helpful to people.

You hang your arguments on a tabloid journalist which also contradicts your wiki “Biographies of living persons” that mentions “sensitivity” and “getting things right;” “criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources,…”

WP:COI - I did not create the Model Mugging page. It was an individual from one of the groups that was part of the political rift to take intellectual property from the founder, and further insulted the founder by not giving him proper credit – that is theft. Members of these groups are the ones who posted the Peri article in the first place and called it “controversies” that has already been addressed in prior comment.

Delete Model Mugging from data base if you cannot write from NPOV, or if you are going to make false accusations against an “organization for wrong doing that you cannot substantiate”, attack individuals based on rumors, and insult-slander-libel, you are discrediting yourself and Wikipedia.

The paragraph I wrote left the unreliable source in the paragraph, but added contextual information from which the unreliable source was contrived, sources from which you deleted. How is that WP:COI?

I contest, remove the Peri’s article as being a single an unreliable source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiipedia-posting (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your professional / personal experience with Peri or the organization can't be used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of valid source material and being that you are in some way affiliated with the subject of the article and are evidently the only editor trying to downplay or remove or narrate away any negativity is... problematic. The Peri article clearly meets criteria for use as a source and nothing in the page is hyperbolic or says more than the actual source material itself. Nefariousski (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy Failure of MJ Article

The source article doesn't only have one accusation, it names multiple accusers Peri, Sacco, Carlson with Matt Thomas himself being quoted in article as confirming some of the events did in fact happen although he felt that the actions were misinterpreted. The article is very clear in its statements, there is nothing hyperbolic about what is being said in the article that isn't clearly sourced. You can't just water down or disregard valid source material because you don't like what it has to say or we find it questionable. It's a single source and as such only has two short sentences attributable to it. There's certainly no undue weight given to the source and there are again no hyperbolic phrases or wording insinuating these allegations are anything more than allegations. However, These are first hand accounts reported on in a nationally recognized source. Whether they are true or false is not being determined in this article hence why we liberally use the word "accusation". Much of the article specifically recounts these three women's experiences directly with Matt Thomas. If anyone has a rebuttal to these accusations published in any source that's admissible on Wikipedia I'll be the very first editor to edit the article to show to include that information in the article. Nefariousski (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, inaccurate...also consistent failure to acknowledge “rumor campaigns” by the Stanford organization as stated in the same article (page 66 far right column center of page). Author mentions rumors multiple times within tabloid article. Where does Peri come in as an "accuser"? She is the author and not involved other than making many misquotes, omissions, misinformation, and twisting that question her overall reliability - so yes they are hyperbolic statements and the insinuations are sensationalism. Also, the article describes only Carlson made accusations while comments from Sacco list how she felt and states she was not touched inappropriately (page 66 upper left corner), but if you are referring to Grieco in the article, which also described her feelings and opinions without assault. Lastly, there is also no foundation for assault accusations about other male instructors, in the upper right hand corner of page 66 describes another "rumor", then "heard" is written later within the article while describing Grieco's sexual attraction toward an instructor (bottom left page 67). I understand this is a published source, and so are gossip columns. You exaggerate by leaving out the stated purpose of the article that I have previously commented that is to Peri's credit, in which she states that the purpose of the group is to maliciously attack Thomas and the program through rumor campaigns.

Next sentence in this edit is from Stanford News Service article substantiates same group’s beliefs as it relates to accusations and rumor campaigns mentioned in Peri. Following sentence is the existing second Stanford News Service. Last sentence in paragraph is about "success from the empowerment" and selected for BLP as balanced interview with Thomas.Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We dont care that you claim inaccuracy. You need to provide reliable sources that support such a claim. see WP:V and WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)