Jump to content

Talk:George Dillman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Kyusho-jitsu is does not deal only with chi. It is the art of using pressure points to disable an opponent. No touch knock outs are only a side show. This should be fixed.216.11.202.154 (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirects

[edit]

Redirects between people and the art they created are done all the time especially when one or the other are deeply intertwined, do not have enough content to stand by themselves, and repeat themselves. George Dillman and Kyushu jitsu are a classic example of this.Peter Rehse 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess some fans don't read talk pages. Fixed it up - not worth the fight. But there are three pages that now talk essentially about the same thing.Peter Rehse 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Knockout" Chi?

[edit]

Are all semi-successful paranormal frauds going to get entries on Wikipedia or just the martial arts frauds? Austinmayor (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging this article into Dim Mak since this is apparently what Dillman's notability is due to. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on second thoughts, Ryukyu_kempo_karate#As_taught_by_George_Dillman would currently be a better merge target. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasist

[edit]

Anyone have any idea how to address use of that word? Wikipedia forwards "fantasist" to "Walter Mitty" which isn't indicative of what that word means. Fantasists are somewhat common in the strip-mall martial arts scene, advancing paranormal/supernatural concepts that have no basis in anything credible, but their own willingness to rent a storefront and present their fantasies as being true. Dillman is pretty much the dictionary example for a martial arts fantasist (aka- Bullshido). How do we address that? LoverOfArt (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have problems with the "Walter Mitty" redirect. Walt was an inept character whereas Dillman actually has some notable background. Did he go off the deep end or did he discover a marketing ploy who knows. The article does give a good sense of this - I think the fantasist term is not necessary.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the author of the above discredits himself by referring to the arm chair martial artist of Bullshido. This website is a bunch of self proclaimed watchdogs with little to NO experience trying to make names for themselves by discrediting others. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Second with regard to George. His biggest problem is not his martial arts. It is his terrible PR work and talking when he should be listening. Simply put, Kyusho jitsu is simply nerve strikes. If he has called it nerve strikes it may have not been as successful for it. Kyusho contains theories, whether scientifically proven of not are effective, and his methods of teaching do work very well. Also there is nothing wrong with turning you passion into a business. The big egos in martial arts need to grow up and accept this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.138.183 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His methods of “teaching” have repeatedly been proven to be utterly worthless. There's no such thing as a touchless attack. Sorry you got sucked into believing this. (Walker Snarling) (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He bought some sports memorabilia and "taught" Ali martial arts all self referenced.

[edit]

Dillman is unfortunately not notable enough for a wiki article. The citation for making him "famous" is a narrated article of an interview Dillman where Dillman says he taught someone famous, who was famous for things other than what Dillman taught. It's akin so saying the Alaskan guide is famous because in an interview the Alaskan guide said he and Donald Trump met on vacation and thus he is now "famous" and "notable" because he taught him how to fly fish.

The above paragraph is not correct. Dillman knew Ali very well. Ali sparred with him and eventually sold him his training camp in PA. Dillman is also a great practitioner of Karate. He does cause knock-outs with his light strikes (pressure points in the neck) all the time. He sullied his name with the "no-strike" knock out claims; but he still a great master. His many schools and thousands of students does make him famous in the karate world in the USA. (Famous vs. infamous might be a better argument). Most American Karate masters will have to link their lineage to someone of the Asian decent to get credibility. Oyata did spend lots of time teaching Dillman which explains the anger he felt when Dillman wrote the books exposing Oyata's training to anyone with $20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.78.121 (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is self serving advertisement for a business Dillman runs. He his palming off the notability of Oyata and others before him, but not on his own achievments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.71.163 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Dillman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxing

[edit]

George Dillman is a known hoax, I don't want to inherently slander him on the page so I added some of his claims and just mentioned that they were unfounded. I would like to merge or delete this page as he isn't a notable figure. Please let me know if anyone has any concerns.

I suggest if you haven't already to watch the national geographic interview that he did. they basically destroyed all his credibility asking him to perform his moves on one of the channels team members, he blamed the failure on the tongue being in the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pothero101 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Someone is vehemently protecting his page trying to paint him in the best light possible, attempting to use wikipedia as a sales platform for their books and dvds.

Ngl I was very surprised at how positive this article is about him. A light investigation in to "fraud martial arts" yields his name prominently and frequently. He's a prominent promoter of touchless knockouts, and is featured on that page, and yet there's no mention of his touchless knockout activities on this page, despite there being a National Geographic documentary on thone subject heavily featuring him. This seems absurdly conservative even for a BLP. Binkyuk (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a very neutral reference to his touchless knockout claims (which it appears there's little dispute that he made, on camera). The previous discussion rejecting the NatGeo episode as a source seemed to focus largely on linking to a youtube rip, but I believe this is poor objection. The original episode undoubtedly exists, and was made by a reputable publisher; I see no reason not to use it as a reliable WP:offline source, and difficulty obtaining it is not a good reason to reject it. Binkyuk (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Incident

[edit]

Why was the reference to his notorious appearance on National Geographic in which his no-touch KO nonsense was more or less completely disproven? This is by far the most notable thing about him, and its absence is inexcusable, suggestive of interference either by George himself or one of his students. I'm adding it back in.98.250.177.207 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Ryan[reply]

Its removal was consistent with Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, and I have removed it again. It was poorly sourced and cited only to primary sources. DanCherek (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the article should be deleted entirely, because the only reason why ANYONE has heard of him is that disaster of an interview. There are also a multitude of secondary sources referencing the interview that can be cited (as in everything written about him that isn't from his website or several decades old Black Belt Magazine articles). It's also more than a little rich to cite video of interviews as primary sources that are incapable of supporting a claim when literally half the cites in the article are to video of interviews with him, and the rest are to print interviews with him in the notoriously poorly fact checked Black Belt Magazine. Either delete every claim that is solely supported by a primary source (i.e., the entire article) or reinsert the National Geographic interview with any of the literally hundreds of secondary sources referencing it. - Unsigned.
I dispute that it's "poorly sourced". It's not using "youtube" as a primary source, it's using a National Geographic documentary episode as a primary source. If you object to the link to youtube, simply remove it; the link to the NatGeo episode is sufficient, and is perfectly valid as an offline source, and is from a usually reputable publisher. The objection of using it as a primary source may be valid, but the fact that the only online versions of the source are youtube rips is not. Binkyuk (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the no-touch KO debunking video is by far the most (to me and my friends the only) reason for this person's notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.24.170 (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Dillman&oldid=1257670267"