Talk:Touch of Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merger Proposal[edit]

Yes the word Dim Mak means touch of death so therefore it would be simple enough to ad them together —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Dim Mak is nothing but pressing vital points on the body (p.e. nerve knots) and can cause anything from the sensation of warmth to extreme pain. As far as I understood it, the Touch of Death-article is rather about a fictional thing and if I am wrong and it is serious, a single touch would still be a technique of Dim Mak.

Wondered why Wikipedia did not have an article on this topic. I submitted a stub, but this interesting topic needs more edits!

Some links:

This page could potentially be combined with Dim Mak, although I think Dim Mak is more of a subset of the Touch of Death move in general. James Lednik 07:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the merge should be the other way, this article into Dim Mak. Neither article is especially good, but this one has very little going for it from an encyclopaedic standpoint, unfortunately. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a very traditional style of Shotokan karate in the mid-70s and the Death Touch we were trained in was always to the same spot on the body. Supposedly, it could cause death to occur at any time within the ensuing two weeks. The person who delivered the blow could not, to the best of my knowledge, control exactly when the death would occur. I have noticed that the exact location on the body is never specified in mass media or in documents available to the general public, so I won't specify it here. My reason is that at the dojo I attended many prospective students weren't accepted because the instructors didn't want violence-prone people learning what they taught, and this page is available to the general public.PMELD5 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Definitely no. I'm trying to find 點穴/點脈 "dim mak-vital points pressing" today but am surprisingly taken to this "touch of death", 點死穴, which is merely ONE OF MANY fictive ways of vital points pressing.

Maybe the word "vital" makes you misunderstand. "Vital points" in Chinese, IS the word "acupuncture points", not the "death point".

No offence, but I think anyone who would support this merging would be a non-Chinese who has some misunderstanding on the term. A foreigner may not know that the "death point" is only one of many alleged vital points in our bodies. But any Chinese would know that 點穴/點脈/dim mak-the vital points pressing skill in fictions, could cause a range of effects depending on which point is pressed.

How could you merge the following functions into "touch of death"? They are even more popular than a death attack in fictions:

♦Slow or stop bleeding (can apply to oneself)

♦Slow or stop poison spreading (can apply to oneself)

♦Paralysing or partial paralysing

♦Muting etc.

In case you don't know it, these are all 點穴/點脈/dim mak-vital points pressing techniques!

SuperXW (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Dim Mak is not all about this Touch of Death thing. This article is not all about Dim Mak, so why merge? Mallerd (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No Simply because the term "Touch of Death" doesn't means "點脈" (Dim Mak) in Chinese, get the translation right before distroying anything. --Da Vynci (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A simple question: have you self-proclaimed practitioners of Dim Mak actually read that page? It is currently about 90% identical to this one. What is the point of having two pages that say the same things? - Frankie (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For the same reason as Frankie. The pages are practically identical. Nothing at all would be lost by combining them.

Yes. Unless the Dim Mak article is amended to be somehow appreciably different from this one, there's no reason not to merge them under Dim Mak, and maybe include a subsection about how it is related to the 'touch of death' concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - seems a reasonable merge, Dim Mak easily fitting as a subsection of this article. Note that the Dim Mak article has recently been stubbed, with a lot of unsourced and possibly innapropriate material removed, and there would be significant room for it to be expanded out again as a section. If it reached any kind of appreciable length it could be split out again. Artw (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral There are valid reasons both for and against a merge. However, as things stand, I'm beginning to get the Dim Mak article to the point where it's a bit better and has quite a bit of information not seen in the Death Touch article. As long as the information is easily referenced and appropriate I'm happy either way.Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Links[edit] James Lednik (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


The ninja move referred to in the lead is defibrilating the heart. Or fibrilating I don't know the correct usage in the context. Mallerd (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


I had some information from the Chinese wikipedia on the source for Dim Mak in Wuxia literature. This has been removed from the newly merged file. Just curious as to why?Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, this may have been a mistake. But note that it isn't admissible to cite Wikipedia as a reference. The claim will either have to stand unreferenced, or will need to provide the reference given in Chinese Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

here is your diff:[1] The statements attributed to zh-wiki were:

  • (a) Though the Chinese roots of the technique are within Chinese Traditional medicine, accounts of diǎnxuè as a deadly fighting technique appear to have come about through exaggeration in Wuxia literature.[2]
  • (b) The earliest available reference to diǎnxuè appears in a Qing dynasty account of Shaolin Temple which states that Zhang Sanfeng devised a set of 72 "hollow points".[3]

Point (a) is essentially still made in the article. We currently cannot trace "dim mak" or "dian xue" to a source predating 1950s Wuxia fiction. This makes it rather likely that there is no such source (or perhaps just an early instance of Wuxia predating 1950 we happen to miss)

Point (b) would otoh would be rather valuable, also to the pressure point article. But I am not sure whether the claim is that the actual term diǎnxuè is claimed to predate 1912, or if this is just about a system of "72 hollow points" that could be argued to show some conceptual similarities to Dim Mak. Also, we would need to identify this "account of Shaolin Temple" and preferably date it, as "Qing dynasty" (1644-1912) is a rather fuzzy indication of date. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

After really jumping into the CMA article and looking at the state of the articles I think it's time for me to get my writing boots on and produce some magazine content to reference against. Meir Shahar is great - but he's just one man. And outside of him very few people are writing about CMA history from an academic perspective in English... Well him and Gene Ching I guess.Simonm223 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


it appears that the term kyushojitsu in Japanese MA is older than the term Dim-Mak, and appears in various historical styles. The identification of kyushojitsu with Dim-Mak appears to be due to Dillman. But this needs better references. If this is correct, kyushojitsu should probably redirect to pressure point instead of this article. --dab (𒁳) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References Section[edit]

We don't want the cultural references section to be a list of random pop culture tidbits. Some of the items are only tangentially connected to the topic (Vulcan Nerve Pinch for example). I think we should try to set an upper limit on the number of cultural references and keep examples more contained to the specific topic. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

well, seeing that this entire topic is an item of popular culture, it seems a little futile to have a separate "in popular culture" section. Popular culture is certainly on topic here, but we need to sort out the notable bits from the unnotable ones. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am entirely in agreement.Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone should mention the Referece in the Simpsons when Bart says he learns the touch of death at karate school, on the second day no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Please refer to the above discussion.Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Vibrating palm[edit]

[4] "Don't even know where to start to get the weasel words and peacockery out of the vibrating palm stuff so... out it goes"

So Simonm223 what exactly are you trying to say? What needs to be changed in your opinion? As well what (or how many) references do you need me to present to show fact about the section you deleted?

On a side note I do not like your personal anecdotes/cute remarks left in the edit summary; it is uncalled for and not helpful.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Revealed to the world" is peacockery. So is the whole "first to lay out scientific explaination" stuff. Let's face it, we are talking about a fictional technique. There isn't a scientific basis for something that, according to all reliable evidence, was made up for Chinese fantasy/adventure stories. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
On his user page he claims to be some "Chinese martial arts master" so I'd ignore him. Get over it, dude, you can't kill people instantly with some dumb-ass hand gesture or with your "ancient" fighting techniques - i.e. flailing around like an idiot and wanting so bad to be from Japan or China even though you are probably embarrassing to them and would probably never accept you. Kind of insulting really, friendo. So insulting that even after 6 years that you left this comment, Liu Kang from Mortal Kombat, Elite Samurai from Age of Empires 2, and everybody from Shenmue 1 and 2 are just sighing behind your back.

Simpsons Touch of Death reference[edit]

So apparently Simon the end-all-be-all wikipedia god keeps editing my additions. The touch of death move played an important role in that episode. Anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No death touch was used in that episode... which in the end was kind of the point. I'm just trying to keep the cultural references section focussed so that it doesn't explode with masses of Fan Cruft as has happened in the past. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, the Touch of Death had to have been used or have to be practitioners of the move. I can see at least two places where this is disputed, (Batman and The Brentford Trilogy). Furthermore, in the video game the move the character used was called "The Touch of Death" so your point is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee and the "Touch of Death"[edit]

Though rumors were rampant at one time to the effect that Bruce Lee's death was caused by an application of some form of the "Touch of Death," Davis Miller, in his book The Tao of Bruce Lee, claims that he interviewed the presiding coroner at Lee's inquest, who told him that Lee's death was the result of a severe allergic reaction to THC, the active compound in hashish, with which Lee was self-medicating heavily in an attempt to deal with stress. According to Miller, and to the coroner, this type of reaction, though somewhat rare, is most commonly found in Asian men. When Miller asked the coroner why this information wasn't widely known, as opposed to the mythical story of the "Touch of Death," the coroner replied that, strangely, no one ever asked to see the actual inquest report. David Wade Smith (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). ."

The citation style isn't clear to me, but if it's referring to this document, I'm unable to find the added information therein. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[edit]

PabloJesusGuardado (talk · contribs)

Would it be too much to ask people to refrain from adding their own homepages to random Wikipedia articles? --dab (𒁳) 20:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"cultural references"[edit]

Probably not the best of section titles, since the topic itself is a "cultural" matter by nature of being a concept from Wuxia fiction.

  • it originates in Chinese Wuxia fiction
  • it was adopted in kung fu movies (which are basically an extension of classical Wuxia to a modern medium)
  • it made an appearance in shady 1960s to 1980s neo-Ninja bullshido
  • since the 1990s (?) it serves as a kind of campy pop-culture cliché used even outside of its original genre (but is this notable)?

--dab (𒁳) 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

since the best kung fu movies are bona fide choreographed martial arts as well as camp and (self-)parody, I find it difficult to draw any line between "real" and "parodistic" use of the concept. Perhaps it is best to look at it chronologically. The turning point seems to be Blood Sport in 1988. This was probably the last time the concept could be used without appearing as self-parody. After this, it was still freely used in bona fide kung fu movies such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (which of course do not make the slightest attempt of appearing in any way 'reality-based'), but it also started being used outside of the narrow kung fu genre.

I don't know if Kill Bill or Kung Fu Panda should be considered "real" examples of Wuxia or as parody. Probably nobody knows because there is no kind of delineation between "real" and "parodistic" here to begin with. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dim Mak vs. Touch of Death[edit]

Rlawhorn (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)January 8, 2014

The Dim Mak page is riddled with inaccuracies, assumptions, poor translations, and the overall content mixes pop culture with the true art of Dim Mak. Some factual content exists, when it deals strictly in reality, but to take a movies interpretation and treat it as factual is very damaging. I propose you could keep your Touch of Death page for the legend, rumor, and fraudulent use of the term, but I suggest that a separate page be made called Dim Mak Marital Art and to begin to consolidate the facts relating to the Chinese program. Ninjutsu and other arts may be based on the knowledge, but it does not form the basis of history or practice in reality.

OK but you can't just remove big chunks of content without a reasonable explanation. I suggest that you start writing a draft of the new article at Draft:Dim Mak (martial art) and then get some feedback from other knowledgeable editors such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts. ... discospinster talk 23:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will draft and pull the factual content if you are forcing me to modify the page you have. As stated earlier, the other option is to create a new page called Dim Mak Martial Arts and you can keep the Touch of Death as a reference to fraud, pop culture, rumor, etc. Which option would you suggest. I am sure that Dim Mak Martial Art for facts, and Touch of Death for uneducated group think would clarify many discrepancies. The state that it is in right now assumes that any rumor I start about other arts can be the overarching theme for them, since this one has been singled out. Please let me know which way you would like for me to proceed.Rlawhorn (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the sport to make suggestions on content. My concern is making sure that such significant changes are worked through at a reasonable pace rather than all at once. All I can recommend is writing a draft version and then asking other editors from martial arts backgrounds for review. ... discospinster talk 23:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Touch of Death. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)