Talk:Choking game

message: 217.132.53.93 wrote quite correctly:
The mechanism suggested above cannot be right. It does not explain why fainting occurs within seconds after hyperventilation. If supression of the breathing reflex was all that was happening, then the practitioner would still need to hold his breath for a couple of minutes to pass out. Isn't there an M.D. here who can straighten things out? 217.132.53.93 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong explanation is wrong explanation 

message: Would be nice to have references for these other names. Or at least cut them down a bit? - FrancisTyers 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other names

message: Isn't this the same euphoric experience those who inhale nitrous oxide are seeking?  They also report giddiness, dizzyness, and tingling in the roof of the mouth, lips, and extremities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishibbard7 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whipped Cream Canisters 

message: This is crazy, kids doing it with belts and ties and stuff... Remember back in the day where you held your breath and someone pushed you and you were only out for 10 seconds? No one died then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.66.186 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2006.
:I highly doubt this is as wide spread as officials want people to believe. --68.45.219.63 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Days

message: Considering that children are using all of these alias' to refer to this activity, paring down the list might lessen to usefulness of the article. Although, it would be good a good idea to link these all in to either the Choking game or the Fainting game since those are the most commonly used names. (Yeahkt 19:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting down Other Names list 

message: I know some people are going to flip out about the categorization of the fainting game as an "extreme sport", but please hear me out. 
Categorizing it simply as "death" isn't accurate. Millions of people have played it (myself included) and are just fine. I'm sure more people have died fixing television sets, but Television isn't categorized as "death".
In its way, this is a game. Dangerous, yes. So is mumblety peg. But this seemed a little more extreme even than mumblety peg, and simply listing it as a game seemed not to do the article justice.
The fainting game isn't really a competition, so maybe "sport" is inaccurate, but bungee jumping isn't all that competitive either. Both are non-competitive, both are potentially deadly, so it makes sense to group them in a similar category. The fainting game is the very definition of extreme sports. For lack of a better category, that's where I've put it. Kafziel 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: This seems like a heavily biased article to me - apart from the method description, it's nearly entirely a warning-against. Plenty of games are dangerous, and the Wiki articles on them aren't devoted to advising against playing them. I'd like to see a neutrality-questioned tag on this, but I think I'm supposed to discuss it first, so here you are.
Mushroom Pi 03:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I read and was impressed by the Wikipedia's "Choking Game" article just a few days ago. Today (Tuesday 18 July 2006) I saw a picture from Reuters included in the Day In Pictures feature of sfgate.com which would make an astounding illustration for the "Choking Game" article. The caption says "Panhandling with a twist: With help from his brother, a 12-year-old boy wraps thick steel wire around his neck to entice handouts from passersby in Wuhan, China." This picture made the phenomenon of voluntarily choking oneself and/or allowing oneself to be choked in public spectacularly real to me, and I feel that it should be seen in connection with the Wikipedia article, but after reading about copyright and fair use, I'm afraid to upload it. I would like to know what other, more knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedians think about this. Thanks! --A. L. "Tony" Biggs 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyrighted image - fair use? 

message: I added the  tag to this article because it has no inline citations. All Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles require inline citations. This article is thorough, so to reach a higher level of quality, it should have in-line citations, even if they're all from the same book (e.g. California Gold Rush.) Jolb 18:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced tag 

message: i don't know how i found this area anyway but i thought i would chip in that there are two forms of the game...  how each affects you medically i'm unsure but when i was a kid we would hyperventilate while bent over with our butt on a wall and then stand up as quickly as possible, lean against the wall, with arms across the chest, then another person would use two hands and lean their entire body weight into the point where the arms were crossed over the chest, exerting extreme pressure on the thoracic cavity (not just a "bearhug"), until the person passed out.  When I became a teenager a boyfriend and i were discussing it and he mentioned the occluded carotid version.  He explained that the person would hyperventilate and then another person would occlude both carotids until the person passed out.  It seems to me that latter would be the more dangerous version being that blood supply to the brain is cutoff, however the aforementioned method is quite effective and in my opinion more clearly produces the hallucinagenic, dreamlike, effects; the loss of consciousness in this version is brief (<45seconds)but seems to last forever in the dreamlike state and does not usually result in a headache or sense of impending doom.  The latter method on the other hand (yes i've done both) is very brief in actuallity and in the way it feels, there is more of a flash of light (no dreamlike state or "visions"), a sense of impending doom, and horrible headache.  Hope that helps.  I just associated a third version called the natural whippit and it is actually done in a group.  Acircle of people (6 or more) cross arms at the elbows with the forearm behind the head of the person beside you and form a circle then everyone leans back taking a deep breath in and then leans over as they exhale; this repeated 10x on the 11th inhale everyone inhales very rapidly and deeply, holds their breath, closes their eyes, and leans back as far as the can (the arms linked behind heads gives you something to lean into), then everyone in the whole group passes out and everybody ends up unconcious on top of one another, add any other mind altering substance and you've got quite a ride.216.61.127.241 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 forms 

message: Undid delete of "It is also free, legal and appears innocuous to those without a proper understanding of the mechanism involved" made on grounds it was POV.  The perception by potential users that it is harmless is a key factor in its adoption by children, this is relevant here and is a known problem in the deterent education of children in this matter. Ex nihil 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just thinking about potential problems with this article, and your post here brings up some excellent points.  This could be somewhat like bomb making articles, honestly, whereas just making the information itself has the potential to be harmful.  Wikipedia is not censored, and doesn't side with any given side of an argument, but that just makes it all the more dangerous.  I understand your point, but the act of removing the statement could be taken to be POV as well. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've always heard this referred to as a California dream shouldnt "California dream" redirect to this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.31.112 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Dream 

message: I have deleted the “History and Deaths” paragraph because it does not contribute to understanding this phenomenon and is misleading.  A history section might be useful but this is not the history of this activity and the content needs to be researched.  This may have been done somewhere else but I have not seen it and it would require considerable work.
 
A history must be accurate and verifiable in numbers and dates and it must be the history of this activity not that of a few individuals who may or may not have practiced it.  Quoting a very few isolated deaths in the USA and Japan is not a history and gives the impression that the activity is recent, rare and geographically limited when in fact, anecdotally, my father played this game in the UK back in 1928, and in Darwin, Australia, which has a population of only 80,000 we have at least two documented deaths within five years and possibly more but which were attributed to suicide.  The likely truth is that a history would show that this has been played since time immemorial, is almost ubiquitous and has claimed thousands of lives within a specific age and gender cohort.
The naming of specific individuals in the USA and Japan serves no purpose and does not belong in an article such as this.  A specific case may serve to illustrate a useful point made in the text but none of these examples do this.
   
If you have access to reliable statistics, even if only for a given country or state jurisdiction please set this out in a way that might indicate the real extent of this activity.
Before reverting this deletion please discuss here, preferably post your proposed text for a history here to discuss.  Ex nihil (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Deaths 

message: Someone please explain why videos on Youtube would be an acceptable reference. These videos are often unreliable and may actually encourage the Fainting game. --Astroview120mm 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not acceptable references, I am removing them.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube references

message: External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience.  Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.  
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
*  Online discussion groups or chat forums
*  Personal webpages and blogs
*  Multiple links to the same website
*  Fundraising events or groups
*  Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
*  Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)
I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I removed the somewhat lengthy section giving detailed instructions on how to practice this game, as it violates WP:NOT#HOWTO.  In addition, the section was using youtube videos as references, and youtube videos are of course not reliable sources.  If someone wants to save this valuable "how to strangle yourself" content, perhaps they could move it to wikibooks.  --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That content was about variations, not a how to.  The current state of the article gives just as sufficient how to information aside from being amazingly confusing.  One way or the other, the distinction for self-used ligature strangulation needs to be made crystal clear, because that's the one that all the death reports come from. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed how-to content

message: How old is the fainting game? I remember doing it while a freshman back in 1985. The class learned it from a kid from Chicago. One person would hold a continous pressure to the chest until one faints. Rob (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a brief craze at my (UK) school in the mid-1970s. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Fainting game

message: Why was the page moved from Choking game to Fainting game?  Dismas|(talk) 08:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to put it in quotes to get the exact phrase search. Sorry I did a typo- I get 3,000 hits for fainting game [] and 100,000 for choking game [].  Sethie (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to and from Choking/Fainting game 

message: The "extent of" section contains the following sentence: "The 2006 Youth Health Risk Behavioral Survey in Williams County, Ohio found that 11% of youths aged 12-18 years and 19% of youths aged 17-18 reported ever having practiced it. [1]". Although this accurately reflects what's stated in the reference, the reference itself is almost certainly in error, for purely statistical reasons. For this statistic to be accurate, it would have to be the case that only 7.8% of youths 12-16 had engaged in the practice, but 19% of youths aged 17-18 had; this seems highly implausible, since it would mean that there had been a very sudden sharp drop-off in the practice. Since the cited article also notes that most deaths from the practice are in the 11-16 age group, this statistic becomes almost impossible to believe. My strong belief is that this is simply a typo in the cited article, but the reference should be removed unless it can be clearly verified as accurate. For now I'll simply remove it -- this seems uncontroversial to me -- but please contact me to discuss it further or to verify my methodology. Eggsyntax (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any discrepancy at all.  If the statistic was "7.8% of youths aged 12-16 reported having smoked a cigarette, and 19% of youths aged 17-18 had smoked" that would simply mean that the older you are the more likely you are to have smoked, which is precisely what the statistic is saying.  As for the "very sudden sharp drop-off in the practice", that actually is the case, as noted in the bell curve graph showing a peak in the early to mid-teens compared to deaths from suicide by asphyxiation. I have restored the content.  - BanyanTree 08:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with statistical reference 

message: Despite  since April, no cites given. Despite inline notes to not add any new ones without cites, it's a magnet for uncited addition. At best, this will (IMO) always be a cherry-picked list of some specific examples and it doesn't even add much to the article. Time to remove it? DMacks (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A great relief to see that Section go!  It has always been high maintenance.  Now without the names the section is redundant, the remaining comment in it was itself uncited so I have removed the section in toto and replaced with brief mention of othwer slang terms in intro. Ex nihil (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms list 

message: I saw a girl do this at my school. She squatted, breathed really heavy for 20 seconds, stood up, put her thumb in her mouth, and blew on it until she passed out. Would this have the same effects on her as all of the other fainting games? Is the science the same? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by  99.203.161.140 (talk • contribs) 14:14, October 13, 2009
:Yes. Same effects, different method. For future reference, this talk page is meant for discussions about improving this article, questions such as these are meant for the Wikipedia:Reference desks. -- œ™ 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this another variation with the same effects? 

message: The phrase 
Vasoconstriction is only reversed by the build-up of CO2 in the blood through suspension of breathing
seems to contradict the course of the game. Fainting occurs, as far as I can see, not during hyperventilation (where CO2 fades away), but invariably afterwards, during holding the breath. Why would that be the case, if vasoconstriction due to CO2 would be essential the reason for fainting?
I also do not understand what "5. Pooling of the blood present in the brain at the time." means. In which vessels would that take place? Cannot be the veines, as the O2 of the pooled blood is mentioned afterwards. Cannot be the arteries, as they are constricted. Puzzling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.44.197 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasoconstriction hypothesis 

message: My brothers forced me to play the fainting game as kids.  I believe some of us now (adults), have some neurological disfunction.  My question is, can our children inherit this?  Can we get help for us as adults after 20+ years?
Curious  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.168.73 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. Just ask Lysenko. --78.69.33.197 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What has that got to do with anything? In other words, no, they can't inherit brain damage. Still, wrong place to be looking for advice, IMHO. -- JaymesKeller (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Induced Hypocapnia 

message: Urban Dictionary is certainly not a valid source for information on Wikipedia. The site allows anyone to add words, simply requiring another user to ok it. I've personally created words that have more thumbs up than the word sourced for this article. The very nature of the thumbs up and thumbs down system that the site employs to verify the popularity of a slang word speaks volumes of the subjective nature of its entries. In other words... Seriously? Livingston 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Dictionary? 

message: I find it very hard to belive this needs to be in the BDSM cat. Unless anyone can state to me a good consensus why it should be there, I'm removing it, because I personally find it innapropriate for this article. -- JaymesKeller (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Game" =/= BDSM 

message: Should this article be added to "Causes of Death", or is it for mechanisms, like Asphyxia? -- JaymesKeller (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Causes of Death" Cat? 

message: I am a professional substance misuse worker working with young people aged 12-17.  I have now come across two teens who have practised the 'Fainting Game' in combination with Cannabis use.  This is known by the slang name 'Double D'.  This appears to be a specific geographical location near Cardiff, Wales, UK.  I have advised both the young people involved regarding the dangers of this practise.  They were both unaware of the potential dangers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Dalie (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substance Misuse and the 'Fainting game' 

message: Total wikipedia newb here, but I wanted to mention something I have long known from my own personal experience that I think warrants mention either in this article or another similar article:
Fainting can also be induced within a few seconds by simply carefully placing pressure on the carotid arteries.   I call this "Carotid Compression" (my term only - not from any source).  
I believe this is method is an entirely different category.  From a high level, we of course know that to achieve unconsciousness, there must ultimately be a lack of oxygen to the brain.  The important distinction I want to make is that this article only mentions 2 methods, both employing a basic mechanism of "systemic" change to blood chemistry (loss of oxygen or buildup of CO2 in the bloodstream) in order to induce unconsciousness, whereas 'carotid compression' simply deprives the brain of oxygen by temporarily slowing/stopping the flow of fresh blood to the brain.  When using the 'hyperventilation' or 'strangulation' methods, there is a relatively long period of unconsciousness, followed by a relatively long 'recovery' time while the heart and lungs work to restore balance to the bloodstream.  However, when the 'carotid compression' method is used, once the compression is released, oxygen-rich blood waiting in the aorta quickly flows into the brain, rapidly restoring consciousness.  (I have only my own experience to draw on for these statements)
I would propose, if an authoritative source exists, either adding a third category or at least splitting 'strangulation' into two sub-categories with one being 'Carotid Compression' - or maybe 'Simple Carotid Compression' (I don't know, maybe a doctor could weigh in here with a proper term).  I feel that the distinction is very important to make because causing a systemic blood chemistry change is a totally different animal and FAR more dangerous than simply 'pinching the hose' for a few seconds.  In fact, the 'strangulation' method described in the article may also describe the 'carotid compression' method, but if it does, it sort of mashes them together in the same description, possibly confusing the reader.  Since the mechanism at work, the duration and depth of unconsciousness, and the overall risk are drastically different I believe it's worth some thought.
Unfortunately, I don't have any authoritative sources to back up my statements.  I only have my own logical thought and experience (which I know isn't enough to qualify for wikipedia fame).  I'm not even sure if the methods of inducing unconsciousness in this way have ever been scientifically studied.
Personal Experience Notes: I had jiujitsu training in college where we were taught to use this method and repeatedly put it to use in practice, and since then have played this "game" many times on myself and with others.  I am able to place the heels of my palms on either side of my trachea, apply pressure, and be unconscious in less than 5 seconds.  The duration of the unconsciousness is seldom more than a few seconds (I know because others have watched me do it).  Recovery is very quick, with the 'confusion' period lasting 10 seconds at the most.  For me, headaches are rare using this method unless I do it multiple times in a short period of time.  On the other hand, the 'hyperventilation' method gives me horrible pounding headaches and recovery is much slower.  I have not tried the 'strangulation' method, nor will I, because it seems far too dangerous.
Thanks for reading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.246.211 (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Version - Simple 'Carotid Compression'? 

message: After saving this comment, I'll do a bit of editing. The first thing that struck me was the statement that "No known studies have been conducted". I found this hard to believe. Secondly, even for anecdotal evidence, citations are needed. But it is not for me to belittle the efforts of others - I would rather commend. Nor am I likely to have the time to do other editors' efforts justice in my preferred manner: add citations for existing material and then expand here and there in a constructive manner. What I will do is to create a further reading section, and add some material there. Committed editors, be it me or others, can then utilise the material over time, but in the meantime, readers can peruse for themselves, which is a fundamental objective of any good encyclopedia anyway. Where I can add a citation to existing text, or modify existing text with a citation, but without spending too long on the task, I will do so. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added some articles, but have used my available time. There is usable information in these articles, for citation within the existing text, and for modification/expansion, and also further research cues (terminology, author's names, citations within the articles, articles that have subsequently cited the listed articles etc). I have deliberately listed all of the authors. It is impossible for any contributing editor to know which cues will assist a given reader. I say this as someone who has researched a huge array of material over the years, pursuing all sorts of cues, including those of 'minor' authors. Wotnow (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To faciliate article development I have now amended the above quoted sentence and added a citation. There will be more, limited as it may be, and you should find it amongst some of the material I have provided in further reading. I'll likely follow-up at some point, but others should feel free to do so. Wotnow (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations and/or citable material pending

message: Some categories on this page refer to "a similar sensation" between Nitrous Oxide intake and this one.
After some extensive research, I have stumbled upon the exact mechanism and how it affects the brain (concerning Euphoria only).
Ethanol, N2O are both in the same category of drugs : NDMA Antagonists (read the first introduction paragraph which details effects and the fact that N2O is one of them).
The inhibition of NDMA receptors in the brain cause the dissociative effect of these drugs (as stated above).
Studies have found that brain hypoxia leads to inhibition of the same receptors. Even though this experiment has been done on Turtle, the similarity between human circulation system and other species' ones suggest that similar effects should apply on humans as well (humans and turtles have a closed system, in regard to the link given before).
Which seems to be a very plausible cause of euphoria in experiences of brain hypoxia.
This is not discussed through the Choking Game article and I was not able to find a paper linking the two effects simultaneously (concluding that Brain Hypoxia causes a dissociative experience due to NDMA receptors' inhibition).
I believe it is on the edge of "ethics" to discuss such a subject. But we clearly have all evidences to indicate such result, and I believed it should be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2F75:D00:A06C:DD47:281B:EBA4 (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The medical cause of Euphoria 

message: Thanks to User:Doc James for these
::Prevalence and associated harm of engagement in self-asphyxial behaviours ('choking game') in young people: a systematic review.
::The choking game: a risky behavior for youth.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Choking game. 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/20120807235542/http://www.epedominion.com/HealthSafty/breath.htm to http://www.epedominion.com/HealthSafty/breath.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/IJAMH.2006.18.2.207
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) 23:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified