Talk:Strangling

"...to death?"
I was always taught at journalism college, in law lectures, that strangling was a very final act and that death was the only conclusion. Any compression of the neck area which was not fatal was always an attempt at strangulation, not actual strangulation; and therefore where someone says "strangle(d)/(ing) to death" it's essentially tautologous.

If the compression was for a reason other than violent life extinction, such as an aid to sexual gratification, then the expression I always deployed was asphyxiation; this is also used in coroner's courts where such acts have gone wrong and a person has died as a consequence. Mileage clearly varies, and I've not made any changes to the article as I think further debate might be needed, if deemed important enough! Maybe it varies depending on the national brand of English used. Anyway, thought I'd drop in and make the point; it stems from a dual change I made to the Moors Murders page which has now been reversed. I am not inclined to get into a tit-for-tat reversal process on that article, but I would appreciate some opinions. Regards! Bentley Banana 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Oxford Dictionary of English, strangle is defined as "squeeze or constrict the neck of (a person or animal), especially so as to cause death", with strangulation being "the action or state of strangling or being strangled". So according to this definition, strangling does not necessarily imply death. The definition may vary in different disciplines or areas of knowledge, such as in US law, BDSM or combat sports. In an attempt to reduce bias by any such discipline, a broad definition was used (similar to the one given by the Oxford Dictionary of English). --Marcus      11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think to include a chokehold in an article on strangling is incorrect. A strangle is cutting off circulation of blood to the brain, but a choke is cutting off air and therefore restriction of the windpipe. That has always been the distinction within the martial arts training that I have had which includes both Judo and Jiu-Jitsu.

in the novel titled The Godfather  luca brasi is strangled by  an unnamed assailant, while his hands are held immobile on top of the bar  by sollozzo and tattaglia. there is no knife involved. The knife attack was in the motion picture version.

In a medical setting, "strangle" and "strangulation" refer to any and all constriction of the neck, whether targeting the coratids, the trachea, or both, and whether or not it reaches the point of death. This is most often seen in victims of domestic violence. Choking is almost always in reference to obstruction of the trachea by a foreign body, or the tongue, or otherwise a mechanically obstructed airway. The common textbook definition of choking, as seen on the Wikipedia page for choking (citing a 2015 edition of the National Injury Council's "Injury Facts" Publication), includes the word "constrict", though to my knowledge this refers to constriction of medical etiology, such as airway compromise due to inflammation in anaphylactic shock, rather than due to external compression.

Coaches like John Danaher are correct in differentiating between choking and strangulation, and he is correct in stipulating that the techniques primarily used in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and other submission grappling arts are, in a technical sense, strangleholds rather than "chokeholds", the latter being a misnomer; furthermore, these martial arts techniques are strangleholds which primarily target the coratid arteries, because blood restriction induces unconsciousness much more quickly, reversibly, and reliably than airway restriction, especially manual airway restriction.

"Chokehold", however, is the most common and commonly recognized term, moreso than "strangehold", despite being a misnomer. It is reasonable to include it in this article, in my opinion, as "chokehold" is the most recognizable term (at least in American English) for the submission grappling techniques meant to induce unconsciousness via manual compression of the neck and throat. -Bob R. BobRichards101 (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)BobRichards101 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Choking
They are very similar actions. They both involve a constriction near the neck, and often are intended for and result in death. Without knowing the technical details of the actions (one involves: constriction of blood, the other: constriction of oxygen) one could be confused with the other. I added a disclaimer which I feel improves the article. I'm still considering adding this disclaimer instead, if my disclaimer isn't clear enough:

incaprettamento
Described in this article :
 * The murder of sacrificial victims by "incaprettamento" — tying their neck to their legs bent behind their back, so that they effectively strangled themselves — seems to have been a tradition across much of Neolithic Europe, with a new study identifying more than a dozen such murders over more than 2,000 years. Today, the gruesome incaprettamento murder method is associated with the Italian Mafia, who have sometimes used it as a form of warning or reprimand. Crubézy said it wasn't known why incaprettamento was used for Stone Age human sacrifices, but it might have been because a person bound in this way could be seen as strangling themselves, rather than being killed by someone else.

The word incaprettamento is nowhere on enwiki, and in a half-dozen articles on itwiki about people who died this way, probably by the Mafia. -- Green  C  17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I added a new paragraph. -- Green  C  17:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)