Talk:Chokehold

message: Why is there nothing about the legality of choke holds in anywhere other than the USA?  For instance, they are banned in some British public health authorities (for restraining patients) due to the likelihood of rapid unconsciousness and death when carotid arteries and windpipe are cut off.  But the UK police are allowed, untrained, to choke people. This is a very poorly-researched, parochial article.  2.28.151.213 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA-centric? 

message: Which ones first put your opponent to "sleep" (black him out) first? When strangling someone with a rope or wire, as far as I know there is no intervening unconscious phase, when the person has stopped moving, they're dead. The snare (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which other article is that? Shawnc 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unconsciousness and Death

message: Some chokes are apparently "air" chokes that attempt to crush the windpipe (or have an element of this), eg. the hadaka jime (somewhat inaccurately known as the rear naked choke):  Quote: "Basically, except for one form of shime-waza, hadaka-jime, the pressure is applied to the lateral side of the neck which the anatomists call the "carotid triangle"." Shawnc 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood choke exception: Hadaka jime

message: I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is NOT a how to, and the relevent parts should be removed. Bihal 14:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to?

message: I think learning how to is just as important as mentioning what it is and I think the "how to" information should not be taken off but instead have a warning for kids.
: Manuals and how-to's are against official Wikipedia policy (reference). --Marcus 07:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To? 

message: Is there anyone that could add sections about the north/south choke or forearm choke?
north/south choke has now been added. I will try to write a stub for it also.
Awesome. It took awhile to get a response, so I really appreciate it. 64.12.116.201 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Forearm choke about Paper cutter choke?--Hiroshi takahashi (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More chokes? 

message: The article currently has the following:The "blood choke" has experienced a resurgence in popularity with law enforcement since close examination of statistical data has revealed the carotid artery submission technique to be relatively safe. A study conducted by the Canadian Police Research Center and posted by the Force Science Research Center in the United States stated 52.9% of the uses left the person being choked uninjured, 41% sustained minor injuries and less than 6% required minor outpatient procedures. There were no recorded incidents of hospitalization or fatalities[citation needed] and the injuries were considered incidental to the application of the technique. It is currently used by numerous police departments in the United States. Some departments consider it a choice when lethal force is justified.
I looked at the Force Science Research Center articles and didn't see this article. I also looked at the Canadian Police Research Center publications and although there are two articles focused on neck restraints (TR-01-2007 (PDF 446 KB) – Neck Restraint Literature Review and TR-03-2007 (PDF 405 KB) – National Study on Neck Restraints in Policing), neither of these articles have the statistics mentioned. II | (t - c) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I ended up finding this; see article history. II | (t - c) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

text: There is an easy solution to that. Just put everyone who strangles someone to death into the gas chamber, no matter the circumstances, Policemen as well as AntiFa Black Block Fighters. To kill someone with a chokehold you have to keep the hold for long after the opponent passed out. So there is no way around judging this as murder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HB Jepsen (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chokehold safety and law enforcement 

message: Can people stop this? You can't just change articles to better suit a certain narrative. And frankly the article was fine before, as it pointed out there really is no single definition used for what a chokehold is. Regardless, I don't see the point of these additions. They also describe the wrong freaking part of the video, as he was accused of using a choke just before he started to say he couldn't breathe, while rolling on the ground. Making all these anon changes to sneak in one specific case without mentioning the obviously inspired source of this 'well known police choke,' also kind of stupid since they're describing the wrong thing. 107.77.76.26 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  obvious Eric Garner inspired edits of police chokehold descriptions being sprinkled in

message: A new Use in law enforcement section  might help with a few anachronistic, unsourced, or scattered claims that are strangling this article. I suggest using this as a checklist:
# Move last sentence, w/ NY Times ref, from Air choke section to new section. 
# Then remove dubious tag from Air choke section after removing false "common law enforcement" adjectival phrase.  
# Then move last sentence, w/ properly formatted Seattle Times refs, from Blood choke section, to pick up law enforcement use with recent  reintroduction of vascular technique etc. to Seattle, as well as LA, NYC and some (which?) other police depts. Cover the controversy, briefly, as above. 
# When all the above steps complete, remove lead's not verified in body tags (right after lead's wikilinked law enforcement). 
# Clarify 70s, 80s abuses that led to ban in LA in 1980, NYC in 1985, other departments nationwide before NYC clarifying order in 1993. NYT article supports all that well. (e.g., expand summary first sentence using first cited NYT reference).
# Highlight allegations of police abuse over the years between original LA/NYC bans in 80s and recent reintroduction of vascular technique. This is significant period of time - 35 years - and highly WP:Notable in itself (perhaps article worthy?), but could be confined to a few summary sentences here from WP:RS together representing WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability  without WP:OR. This article is part of controversial :Category:Law enforcement techniques — not that :Category:Martial art techniques and :Category:Grappling positions aren't also a handful ;) — so we need to get WP:DUE balance right.
In sum: First remove the real problems of this article; only then remove the tags that helpfully point to the problems. Expand intro paragraph (5); and add middle paragraph (6) at will. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Added hyperlink to Article's new section here (in first sentence) and to this Talk page section (from new section's "under construction" template's "comment" parameter). Please note: these minor experiments are purposeful beyond this particular article: I am using this editing opportunity to explore WP Reference Desk options for better enabling round-tripping Q&A feedback and rapid article improvement. All traces (e.g., new article section's "under construction" template & its hyperlink here) but this Talk section will be removed in a few days time, by October 1 at latest. Thank you for your patience and cooperative editing. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in law enforcement - new section needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chokehold. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430224427/http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/strangulation.htm to http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/strangulation.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It isn't very obvious, and it would be good to have it more apparent here for future editors. Is it the degree of lethality? That was my takeaway from scrolling through talk. Ryan Norton 17:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Disputed? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: mark word. 2600:1700:AE17:5E60:E17A:402A:15AB:1EAB (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is a bit of news, a chocked person can only "stop resisting" when dead.