Talk:Insomnia/Archive 1

message: I've removed this from the introductory copy:
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 60 million Americans each year suffer from insomnia. Insomnia tends to increase with age and affects about 40 percent of women and 30 percent of men .
It seems to presuppose that this entry is disussing insomnia in America alone, rather than in general terms. Perhaps it can be reintegrated if someone can find pertinent statistics from other countries that be included in a sub-section.
I'm not American but I do think that information is relevent, we obviously can't have the numbers from every country and having any one countries numbers would seem to be biased for that country. So I don't think its there for bias but rather convenience. I'd appreciate it if you put those numbers back, and if you find relevent numbers for other countries later add those Highlandlord 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Bias 

message: Found a stub article that may have info to merge here, see links. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: I've placed a cleanup tag on this section because it is written in such a way as to give advice to the reader. This is unacceptable for two reasons: it is not encyclopedic in tone, and all the advice is unverified. The information about the techniques for alleviating insomnia seems solid, but the entire section needs to be rewritten so it is clear that the article is describing advice commonly given by therapists and other authorities (with citations whenever practical), not giving the advice itself. (Remember that Wikipedia does not advance opinions, even opinions as simple as "People who want to sleep better should avoid caffeine.") I plan to do such a rewrite myself, but if anyone else would like to get started (or further discuss the issue), please feel free. –Sommers (Talk) 03:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears I never made the edit adding the tag in question. I guess it got lost before I hit the "Save page" button. Anyway, it's there now. –Sommers (Talk) 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleviating insomnia" section 

message: I just added some antidepressants and an atypical antipsychotic to the list of treatments..
+
The article says that benzodiazapines are the most commonly prescribed medications for insomnia, and I'm wondering if this is talking about situational insomnia or chronic insomnia, and whether this is still true. Anybody?
--At least up here in Finland, zopiclone is considered less risky/addictive and is prescribed more commonly. It leaves the body fairly quickly and is also prescribed for alcoholics as the primary sleeping aid.--Snowgrouse 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   == Added treatments + have a question  == 

message: I've just put a "Contradictory" tag on the article. I'm going to add a tag about factual accuracy too. Here are my issues:
- The article starts by saying that insomnia is a symptom and not a disorder. "Primary insomnia" is recognized as a sleep disorder (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000805.htm). "Insomnia" is also a symptom of other sleep disorders. Almost all people experience occasional insomnia as part of normal life. I think this article should distinguish between the three more clearly. 
- The opening paragraphs say that "Finding the underlying cause of insomnia is usually necessary to cure it," but the "treatment" section does not say anything about which treatments are appropriate for which causes.
- It would make sense to name and discuss pychophysiological insomnia (http://www.sleepeducation.com/Disorder.aspx?id=42). Most of the treatments listed here are most relevant to pychophysiological insomnia.
- The ICD9 codes refer to disorders that are not insomnia (!)
There are a lot of good ideas in this article; however I think these things really need to be sorted out. 
Su-laine.yeo 07:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining the "Contradictory" and "Factual accuracy" boxes 

message: what about insomnia caused by an irrational fear of sleeping, not sure if this actually exists but just a thought. Somniphobia or Clinophobia, perhaps? voodoom 08:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fear of sleeping 

message: I removed the comment about marijuana being used to treat insomnia. marijuana is illegal in every country around the world, and it has not been proven to treat insomnia. If anything, Ive read about studies where marijuana has caused people to have even more irregular sleep cycles. And us eof marijuana to treat insomnia isnt illegal in "many" juridisctions, but in every single country around the worldthe
- Every single country around the world? Can you site that claim? 
– I'm not sure where your abruptly curtailed statement was going, but you're incorrect in stating that "marijuana is illegal in every country around the world". See: Drug policy of the Netherlands
Actually marijuana is not LEGAL in the Netherlands, but is tolerated. That means the goverment wont prosecute anyone who has under 5 grams of marijuana. it is decrminalized there, and is not legal. Cultivation of  marijuana is still very much illegal there. 
"The psychoactive plant Cannabis sativa commonly known as marijuana has also been reputed to induce drowsiness in its user, however, use of Cannabis sativa for treatment of insomnia is unlawful in many jurisdictions."
::And copyvio from [here]. Best I can find is a reference that it may assist but nothing to back up that it's been tested--Peripitus (Talk) 08:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marijuana removal 

message: Can anyone see a reason this section should stay ? Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and medical advice has no place here --Peripitus (Talk) 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't with the section itself, but that the individual entries don't have any citations. Most entries are probably written by us rather than being a summary of current medical knowledge, and I think that it should be clearer in the article which parts of the section are current advice and which are mere suggestions.  Also, the advice to avoid caffeine should probably be in the treatment section.  It's worth noting that the entries don't have to be scientifically validated to be in an encyclopaedia, they only have to come from a noteworthy source.   — Lee J Haywood 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleviating insomnia 

message: I see no where in the entry where there is mention of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).  CBT alone has been shown superior to the treatment of insomnia when compared to medication alone and CBT + medications.  There are some of the methods employed in CBT mentioned in the 'helpful advice' section, but CBT deserves it's own section, as it is recognized as a critical intervention in treating patients with primary insmonia.
The treatment section is heavily devoted to medicinal treatment of insomnia and mentions little about sleep hygiene, routine schedules, sleep enviroment, etc (all of which are addressed under the umbrella of CBT).  I fear people reading this will think that drugs are the answer to their problems, when often they are not.  If medications are indicated, it is usually as a short-term bridge until the underlying perpetuating factors of the insomnia are discovered, treated, and resolved.  --Sleep3r 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical pieces of  information missing. 

message: This might sound like a stupid question, but where it says "Primary insomnia is sleeplessness that is not attributable to a medical or environmental cause." what exactly does the referal to "enviromental cause[s]" mean?? Is it as in the natural or physical enviroment the individual lives in (for example, whether he/she lives in the city or the country)  or the enviroment that affects the individual mentally and physically?? I'm doing a school project, so, please answer a.s.a.p. Thank you for reading my ramblings, any help will be much appreciated.  --Frills 10:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe "environmental" includes external factors disrupting sleep. For example, if one lived by railroad tracks where trains                 came through frequently at night, their noise and/or horns might disturb sleep. City noises might disturb a visitor from the country unaccustomed to them, whereas country noises (animals and birds, e. g.) might disturb a city dweller. For a humorous example of this, see the movie "My Cousin Vinnie". Vinnie, from New York City, can't sleep in the rural Alabama countryside, but he sleeps like a baby amidst the cacaphony of a jail cell. A room that is too hot or cold could be an environmental cause also.: Unimaginative Username 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary and secondary 

message: Surely the version I edited didn't mean what it said: "Both orgasmic and non-orgasmic insomnia constitute a sleep disorder". 
I've never heard of insomnia itself causing an orgasm, although there are writers who recommend having one to prevent or relieve insomnia. :-) Unimaginative Username 05:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orgasmic insomnia? 

message: I've alphabetized the common causes of insomnia, they were unordered and haphazard before.
On second thoughts, I migrated this information to it's own article for expansion.
Parkfarm mob 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should caffeine be replaced with stimulants to account for amphetamines etc. cyclosarin 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: *33 years withouth sleep. --85.226.6.231 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sleep 

message: I removed two links.  The first was to a blog with loads of advertising and "content" that was repeated verbatim on dozens of other sites, i.e., a classic link spam site.  The second link was to a web site recruiting people for sleep-disorder--releated clinical trials.  Whereas this site is not spam, it is not encyclopedic. 
Ljosa 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links 

message: Does this section really contribute to or improve the quality of this article at all?  Considering the sheer number of works where characters have some form of insomnia or its used as a joke, such a section seems unwieldy and useless. I propose it be removed. AnmaFinotera 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In studying other high quality medical related articles, not a single one includes this sort of section.  Since no one has objected to my proposal over the last 5 days, and looking at the formats of better quality articles of a similar nature (such as the formerly featured article clinical depression, I have removed the section entirely. AnmaFinotera 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: I have no idea why there is a separate article discussing causes for insomnia.  Maybe it was an attempted fork, or someone just didn't realize there was a main insomnia article.  Regardless, the information within that article, if it is good, should be merged into this article and that one deleted or redirected here.  AnmaFinotera 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you'd rather not what?  *scratching head*  The merger is now done. Causes was an WP:NPOV fork and much of it I tossed out, but the good stuff was kept and incorporated into the insomnia article. AnmaFinotera 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: I am supposed to be working right now, so I can't go into everything. Let's just take the first paragraph: Insomnia is a sleeping disorder characterized by persistent difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep despite the opportunity. It is typically followed by functional impairment while awake. Insomniacs have been known to complain about being unable to close their eyes or "rest their mind" for more than a few minutes at a time. Both organic and non-organic insomnia constitute a sleep disorder.
First of all, the last sentence--"both organic and non-organic..." I haven't looked at the citation(s) and I don't much care to. It needs to be specified within the paragraph according to whom, because according to the DSM, a diagnosis of insomnia (referred to as 'primary insomnia' (307.42)) is not made if the insomnia is of the organic type. There is no other type of insomnia diagnosis other than this. There is 'Substance-induced sleep disorder' of which 'insomnia type' (327.01) can be specified, and there is 'Insomnia Related to Another Mental Disorder' (327.02), but these are three different conditions. I would not classify these all as "insomnia" even if the 'sympotms' are the same. If it doesn't make sense why, let me draw an analogy: we don't diagnose methamphetamine addicts who display symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia as having paranoid schizophrenia, even when symptoms appear identical. Causes are important. Next,
I have a problem with the "insomniacs have been known to complain about being unable to close their eyes" part. If someone cannot literally close their eyes for more than a few minutes at a time, then they might have something far more serious than insomnia. This is poorly phrased--I'm not even sure that complaints of some insomniacs should belong in an introductory paragraph, but that is merely personal opinion.
Lastly--I've really got to go so I have to cut this short--I don't like the phrasing "staying asleep despite the opportunity". That could, and should, be stated in a more 'normal' way. Now, this is just the first paragraph. The whole article pretty much has problems. There are important things that it fails to state, and much of the things are stated poorly or are debatable in terms of accuracy. I do hope you find your "expert" on this. I realize I have given definitions according to the DSM. I am not a neurologist so I do not know specifically the term for the diagnosis that would be given if the insomnia were based on a neurological condition but it would not fall under any of those that I have described, of which primary insomnia is basically just what its name says that it is (and not only is it primary insomnia, it is insomnia). Thus, if you are going by a different diagnostic criteria then that must be specified in the paragraph--not in a footnote. I can't emphasize this enough. --70.59.146.117 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has some huge problems 

message: The references section seems to be broken, as in there aren't any references to match in-text footnotes.
76.10.172.101 (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References seem to be broken 

message: I'd love to hear more about the neurobiological basis of these sleep disorders.  Do these seem to have a similar component, like failure of the inhibitory system in the brain to shut down broad activity?  I imagine it's probably not that simple.  But a look at a review article from neuroscience would provide some great new information in a new section.  Seems like sleep has been studied for ages so there would probably be some good information to share. --1000Faces (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurobiological Basis? 

message: The link for Binaural Beats is not working, but there is an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats.
I'm not familiar with editing Wikipedia pages. Can someone who is update it properly? Or should I go ahead and take a shot at it?
SD Jerry (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binaural Beats has a new address. 

message: really? please explain how a full moon causes Insomnia? i think that entry should be removed to be honest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabu99 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes: full moon? 

message: This article was vandalized quite a lot, parts removed without giving reason and some childish comments added. I tried to restore it, maybe someone that was more firm with the article and is more firm with Wikipedia can check if all is back to normal now? --Stanzilla (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: In this section Insomnia#Non-benzodiazepines the reference says that nonbenzodiazepines bind more selectively to the GABAA receptor. This is not entirely true. It is true for zolpidem and especially zaleplon are more selective but not so for eszopiclone (lunesta) /zopiclone (imovane). I can cite dozens of papers including a world health organisation review on eszopiclone and zopiclone. Whilst the citation is from a peer reviewed and credible source it is quite misleading. I suggest modifying the section with some accurate citations.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please fix it, then.  No need for dozens of citations, one good review paper should be sufficient. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The additions look good to me in terms of form and understandability, I won't judge the content since I'm not familiar with that pharmacology. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: ;This Entry:Part of the Wikipedia entry on insomnia was copied and pasted into a display graphic used in episode 2-16 of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.  The text is displayed, unattributed, near the end of the penultimate segment, as filler in a patient file.
;Insomnia:It is of my personal opinion that, due to the nature of Wikipedia and its daunting task of collecting and cross-reference all knowledge of all human kind, this article deserves a section of Popular Culture. It can list information such as songs about Insonmia, and movies & television programs where Insonmia is a central plot-line amongst other things. I am aware that this is a serious enclcyopedia and this is a serious topic, but if the goal of Wikipedia is to assimilate all human knowledge (which, I'm sure in the future will consist of copies of the information in every single persons brain all with automatic cross-referencing as to allow Wikipedia to truly have all the information known to man) then it needs a serious section dedicated to Popular Culture. 219.90.192.25 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think that's necessary, there are songs about everything. Listing songs doesn't give any information about insomnia. To find songs about a certain topic, be it insomnia, sheep or quantum theory imo Google is still the best.--Stanzilla (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  On one hand, a list of every "can't sleep at night 'cause I'm dreamin' of you" song wouldn't have much value that I can see.  However, there do seem to be some encyclopedic things that could be mentioned, including things like Insomnia (2002 film). Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page was used on the terminator tv show: -- 98.213.120.190 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Links 2 and 3 to the WHO redirect to the main page rather than to insomnia. Krupo (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix it, but it was a bit difficult, because the title's were not given.--Stanzilla (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: A part of this article has been used in "Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles" season 2 episode 16 "Some Must Watch While Some Must Sleep" (timecode 36:35) without attribution. It's the part from "Although there are" to "nocturnal awakening". Maybe some of the original authors might be interested... 85.216.118.31 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that mentioned elsewhere -- I think it probably constitutes fair use. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright... 

message: There is a technique for dealing with insomnia - that is a traditional technique from hinduism and buddhism. That involves chanting a mantra slowly and mentally and keep on listening to it. I have added this, but it seems, some people who have no background in hinduism or buddhism have deleted it. Very funny - as if even if I do not know anything about Fermat's Theorem, I can delete mathematicians' additions. Better, people stick to editing or deleting article additions in only those area where they have genuine competence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrishn2.iitk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any additions must be properly cited to reliable sources. Material in the article on Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, is properly cited to reliable mathematical sources. If you provide sources for your technique, and they are reliable sources (check link for definition), then, by all means, feel free to add that information. nneonneo talk 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It seems your definition of reliable source requires me to give 1-2 more links avowing effectiveness of this technique - I will do that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrishn2.iitk (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you've read the page carefully. It doesn't say that a reliable source must avow the efficacy of the technique, rather, it says that any source must be reliable, third-party, published. The page you posted on healinglightseries.com counts as self-published, and therefore is not recommended as a reliable source (again, see WP:RS for why). If you can demonstrate a news agency or academic journal which discusses the technique, then it can be included, but until then, please do NOT add poorly sourced material to the page, or it will be speedily reverted. nneonneo talk 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "science of mantra" -- source? nneonneo talk 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: One final note here: please sign your posts to talk pages (not articles) with four tildas, like so: ~~~~. This helps distinguish the author of comments posted. nneonneo talk 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, tell me one thing. Reliable source is considered a source like books, government sites or a self-published sites by a renowned expert. The problem is - if my area of expertise would have been say, mathematics and I would have been a professor in some reputed university or published some research papers, I would have been accepted as an expert in that area and would have been allowed to put forth those ideas and use my website as credible resource. Now, my situation is altogether different. I have good level of knowledge on yoga - the proof lies in the google ranking of my website if you search for 'thoughtless awareness' or 'how to deal with negative memories' - the former is the highest level of meditation and the later one of key issues of yoga psychology, but the question is - will they be taken as reliable proof of my credibility? The problem becomes more severe particularly in light of the fact that many of the editors here may not have themselves much expertise in yoga, to understand the validity of my additions. There are many things which I have written on my personal website in much details than are not present on any other website with same level of clear explanation & there are few things which cannot be even found on other websites. So, the question is - how did I find them? Answer is - I have read umpteen spiritual books, most of which are not available online and a few things which I understood/developed on my own. So, I believe that editors should allow me to put my additions which will have some reference from other websites but one reference to my website also because other websites are not adequately explanatory or clear on that technique. Thanks for your understanding  Gkrishn2.iitk (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Self published web sites are not generally consider reliable sources as they usually are not peer reviewed or fact checked.  Journals with reputations for fact checking and peer review (such as mathematics journals) are considered reliable sources.  So your assumption that a professor of mathematics with a self published website would have an easy time posting their original research here is incorrect, even professors must have their material published and reviewed before we accept it here.  I hope this helps. Please see WP:RS for a more detailed explanation of what constitutes a reliable source.TheRingess (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You are partly right. In case of original research, fact-checking is required. That is an issue with yoga topics as most of them are from books written by yoga-practitioners based on their experimentation and validation - their validity is based on thousands of years of experience and are documented in yoga books: modern scientific validation is lagging behind to some extent on those yoga topics. In any case, I accept the wikipedia's methodology of relying on mainstream scientific sources. I understand now, why most of the yoga topics on wikipedia are so poorly written and maintained. Thankfully, people can use other websites on internet to get the correct level of details and explanations on these topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrishn2.iitk (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insomnia technique 

message: I have removed a paragraph that read as follows:
I removed it because, first, the source does not meet RS; second, the claim that taking Tryptophan or 5HTP 30 min before sleeping  is helpful contradicts many other sources (they may be helpful but not when taken at that time); third, none of the other statements are referenced at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph removed from "Other substances" section 

message: I don't want to get into the politics of cannabis. I do feel that the link provided to support the claim that cannabis is helpful in treating insomnia is weak: it points to a self-published source on a site that can reasonably be expected to have a bias (www.cannabis.net). Therefore, I suggest someone either:
1) produces another link
2) removes the reference  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.94.6.5 (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to speculate, the study is freely available.  According to the writeup, participants in the survey were asked about their sleep habits, and six years later the investigators were able to ascertain for 98% of the subjects whether they were still alive. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The citation indeed states that but it also defines the slight risks as being 15 percent, saying "The increased risk exceeded 15% for those reporting more than 8.5 hours sleep or less than 3.5 or 4.5 hours."--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis Reference 

message: The beginning of section 6 says "A survey of 1.1 million residents in America found that those who reported sleeping about 7 hours per night had the lowest rates of mortality, whereas those who slept for fewer than 6 hours or more than 8 hours had higher mortality rates".  Not trying to be rude, but how exactly do you conduct a survey of residents in America to find out what their mortality rate is?
Ronb1224 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to speculate, the study is freely available.  According to the writeup, participants in the survey were asked about their sleep habits, and six years later the investigators were able to ascertain for 98% of the subjects whether they were still alive. Looie496 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The citation indeed states that but it also defines the slight risks as being 15 percent, saying "The increased risk exceeded 15% for those reporting more than 8.5 hours sleep or less than 3.5 or 4.5 hours."--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality Survey 

message: This article states, "Thus mild to moderate insomnia for most people may actually increase longevity and severe insomnia has only a very small effect on mortality." This is not true at all. It would be correct to say "mild to moderate insomnia is associated with increased longevity" or something like that.
People who own BMWs live longer than people who own less expensive vehicles. So by the logic of this article, purchasing a BMW may actually increase longevity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelkabo (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I see your point, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I will reread over the citation in the next day or two and see if I can improve the wording and clarify if the citation implies causation or association etc. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right, that sentence was problematic and I have changed the wording to associated with rather than causes. See this edit. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causality 

message: This article appears to be aimed at the US more than a general view, as statistics in the beginning make reference to the US more than the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriv1211 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: World statistics would be preferred if you can find any. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Can we start a peer review or at least some discussion so people can decide what needs to be done to improve this article above a C class?  On top of basic things like referencing, I think that if there was a clear, agreed agenda for what major edits needed to be done, then this important article could be greatly improved. Jhbuk (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The most obvious things are that the lead needs to be expanded and that the article should be restructured to better match the standard layout for medical articles.  It would really help if we could find a topic area expert who could make an assessment of whether the coverage is comprehensive. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving 

message: http://archpedi.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/6/562
Conclusion  Extensive television viewing during adolescence may contribute to the development of sleep problems by early adulthood.
Talgalili (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest being WP:BOLD and adding it to the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so enthusiastic.  Per WP:MEDRS we ought to avoid primary research studies such as this in favor of secondary review articles, because primary research studies, especially with small numbers of subjects, so often fail to replicate. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but primary sources can be used cautiously per MEDRS although I agree with your reasoning. :) I am happy to leave it out of the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A study to add to the article 

message: The image to the right seems like a perfect image to have in the infobox of this article to me... or at least it is the best creative commons image that I know of for this page. I originally added it in the  but it was removed in the  because it is a "Jokey caption, for a girl who actually is sleeping, according to her own caption". While admittedly the caption could have been more encyclopedic, I think it doesn't really matter whether the model has insomnia or not, but whether or not it makes a good illustration of the frustration and exhaustion of dealing with insomnia. The caption could be rewritten or omitted. What do you think?   —CodeHydro 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unnecessarily soft-porn, on a bed with (only) a bra on and no sheets, and doesn't belong. --Hordaland (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: I am starting this discussion with the  tag in the "Treatment for insomnia" section after some recent edits by user Tejas320, which have been undone variously by me and Looie496   . The only issues with those edits is their lack of sources and general failure to meet WP:Neutral point of view guidelines (since they sound either like an advertisement or prescriptive). I have looked into it and I seem to find that there may be some justification to the edits based on two articles I've found:
*Medscape's "New Guidelines Issued for Insomnia and Other Sleep Disorders" published on September 2, 2010 which clearly states that there is a new consensus regarding insomnia treatment in Psychopharmacology
*MedPage Today's "APA: Evidence Aside, Drugs First Choice for Insomnia" published on May 25, 2010, which says that doctors are prescribing drugs first even though that goes against guidelines--which agrees with Tejas320's edits.
How do you guys think we should approach this new information? How should we note what is outdated and what isn't? Should we completely rewrite the treatment section to reflect the new guidelines or should we keep the old information with a note that it maybe outdated?  —CodeHydro 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is tejas320. I would recommend updating the article with what is pertinent and effective and keeping the old information for reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas320 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the full text of "British Association for Psychopharmacology consensus statement on evidence-based treatment of insomnia, parasomnias and circadian rhythm disorders" -- if needed.  (As referenced in the Medscape article above.)  Hordaland (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another poorly written article should be deleted and instead covered here:  Middle-of-the-night insomnia.  --Hordaland (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment outdated 

message: #The sentence "Primary insomnia is a sleep disorder not attributable to a medical, psychiatric, or environmental cause." was previously cited to Cite web|url= http://www.euro.who.int/document/E84683_1.pdf |title=WHO technical meeting on sleep and health.  I've searched for WHO document E84683_1 without success, unfortunately. However, this quote "2.2 Sleep disturbance from night-time traffic noise, a case of primary insomnia?  In his e-mail dated 10.8.2005, Colin Mathers gives the following statement referring to this question: 'Primary insomnia is sleeplessness that is not attributable to a medical, psychiatric or environmental cause. So this would appear to exclude insomnia due to environmental noise'. This statement has to be accepted as authoritative. We therefore distinguish here between 'primary insomnia' and 'noise-related insomnia'." is found on p. 20 in this PDF.
#The following very nice sentence:"A diagnosis will usually differentiate among insomnia as secondary to another condition, primary insomnia co-morbid with one or more conditions, or free-standing primary insomnia." is admittedly WP:SYNTH on my part. Primary = non-comorbid, but that doesn't cover it. --Hordaland (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: I'm about to remove a couple of lines added by an IP, which Hordaland has fact-tagged.  Both need sources.  One relates to aerobic exercise -- my understanding is that moderate aerobic exercise improves sleep, but very intense exercise can disrupt it.  The other relates to vitamin C, and does not match anything I have ever seen. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me, as in your decision to remove them is ok.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed one sentence and fact-tagged the 2 others.  Fine that you removed them.  (Moderate exercise improves health, which improves sleep.  And the sky is blue.)  --Hordaland (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, strictly as OR, I'm personally convinced that there's more to it than that.  I myself have great difficulty sleeping through the night if I go for a long time without exercise, but a couple of days of robust activity brings me right back into line. The flip side is that I recall seeing a paper recently that said long-distance athletes, such as triathlon competitors or marathon runners, often have difficulty sleeping. Looie496 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Speaking of IP edits (and I don't know hardly anything about this subject), the IP User:24.57.149.85 has been hitting several articles on Wikipedia with heavily unsourced and highly POV statements.  The ip just made a string of edits to this article and this same IP was once before reverted.  I will not revert what I don't know, but someone with knowledge on this subject may wish to look at those edits. -OberRanks (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits 

message: okay so maybe I missed it(but I had trouble finding it) but perhaps information should be included on a rare condition called fatal insomnia(or some other name), where the people eventually cannot really fall asleep at all , as something has eaten at the sleep part of their brain and they eventually die as doctors have said that so far  there  is   no cure  or treatment for this disorder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.186.105 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called Fatal familial insomnia and it is mentioned in the article.  --Hordaland (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  fatal insomni 

message: Though the rest of the article is much better, this section is essentially unsourced, reads like a how-to, jumps between third and second person, and needs copyediting besides. The basics of the content seem plausible—but really this needs a rewrite. 128.135.100.102 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Patterns of insomnia" section 

message: We are working on this Wikipedia page as a group project for our class at Roosevelt University and propose this outline of contribution to the Melatonin and Melatonin Agonists section of the Medications content section. We were looking to breakdown the new section as follows: 
First Section: Introduction to Melatonin and How Melatonin Relates to Insomnia
Second Section: How Melatonin Works
Third Section: Details of Melatonin Drugs Sold
Fourth Section: The Risks and Benefits of Melatonin
Fifth Section: Further Studies on Melatonin and Melatonin Use With Children
Sixth Section: Melatonin Use in Treatment for Diseases
There will be expansion to give clearer understanding of how exactly melatonin can be used to treat insomnia. We will further discuss the drugs that are often used, such as ramelteon and tasimelteon in more detail. We would like to bring new ideas to the section such as risks and benefits to using melatonin to treat insomnia. Furthermore we found a lot of studies linking use of melatonin with children and treatment for diseases.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justine28 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  If you add all that it seems likely to unbalance the article pretty severely, especially given that melatonin is really not one of the most prevalent types of treatment.  Maybe the best thing, though, would be for you to go ahead, and if it turns out too long, as seems likely, once you are done and the class has been evaluated the material can be spun out into a separate article. Looie496 (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does appear to be slightly unbalanced, but after the course is over we can work on condensing the information so that it fits better with the rest of the page.  We did not want to omit the information that was already on the page so we incorporated it within ours.  After the class is over, we can fix it! Alymp17 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt University's PSYC 336 course: Article Outline 

message: *Group, your edits so far are not well integrated. It looks like three people wrote the section on Melatonin and melatonin agonists. For example, it is sold as dietary supplment appears in three different paragraphs. Side effects, risk of dependence, synthetic vs. natural appear in different places. Please integrate. The information here is nice, but it can be made much more concise.
*Please add links to other articles.
Neuropsychprof (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructor's feedback

message: So far I think you guys have added a lot of really interesting information to the article pertaining to melatonin, but I think you need to work on the flow of the overall section. As was already mentioned, a lot of the facts you added appear multiple times in the section, which makes it a little confusing to read. I would rework the lay out of your additions and even combine a few of the paragraphs into one cohesive thought. For instance, the 1st and 5th paragraph could probably be combined since the material discussed is very similar. Similarly, the two paragraphs discussing jet lag could also be brought together. As I said before, all the information I could want is in your article, but the layout/flow makes it really hard to follow. Good job so far guys!
Tjm66680 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 1 

message: Good job so far group. I find the sections to be a little lengthy and I definitely think there is room for some simplification. Changing around the flow of the melatonin section, as previously stated, would greatly improve it. Also some information may not be vital, or just needs to be simplified and using links to other articles helps you not have to go into so much detail. Not too much o change but good job overall, found a lot of good resources and information. Sasenick412 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 2 

message: Good job group! I didn't know there was so many different forms of melatonin. It's already been mentioned but some of the information has been repeated over and over in the section.  Also, some sentences come off a bit awkward, try to reshape them so its easier to read and comprehend. Reva m18 (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 3 

message: I enjoyed reading this article because I actually learned a lot. I do have a couple of suggestions though. It seemed to throw the article as a whole off a little bit because your section is much larger. It also got a little repetitive at times. great resources though, and a great start.jendombeck (talk)
===Comments from Tturner4411===
*Some of the sections get kind of long at certain points
*Stick with important information and cut out some of the supporting information
*Good information and resources
Tturner4411 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 4 

message: *Some of the sections get kind of long at certain points
*Stick with important information and cut out some of the supporting information
*Good information and resources
Tturner4411 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Tturner4411

message: I really enjoyed reading this article and found it interesting, especially since I have Insomnia myself. However I would like to see if the "Patterns of Insomnia" beefed up with some more notes, facts, or info if possible. 
User:RyanFinn20 October 30, 2012  —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanfinn20 Peer Review 

message: I have had incurable insomnia for two years. It was getting worse for about 6 months. I contacted a dozen of the best psychiatric insomnia specialists money could buy. All of them, except last one turned out to be quacks. The last one was a professor - he admitted that my insomnia was incurable and that he could not help me. Eventually I could not sleep at all - I did not have any sleep for about 2 months. Now I sleep about 3 hours twice a week.
Most medical school students get no more than four hours of training on sleep disorders. Some get none because there is no cure for chronic insomnia. Quinacrine (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no cure for chronic insomnia. 

message: It looks to me like we have some editors making edits as part of an academic assignment (apparently), and doing it a bit erratically, as is usual for that situation.  Then we have an IP editor reverting the edits as vandalism (apparently), which they are not.  If anybody involved sees this comment, could you please respond and say soemthing about what is going on? Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on? 

message: "Those who are having trouble sleeping at a point turn to sleeping pills, which at first seem to help but when using it for a long period of time it would cause people to become dependent on them and cause them to get addicted to it." This sentence is grammatically incorrect. Sleeping pills have been treated here as singular rather than plural (it's also clumsily worded, but I don't think I can viably complain about that.) "Those who are having trouble sleeping occasionally turn to sleeping pills. However, there is a danger of becoming dependent or even addicted to sleeping pills if used for long periods of time." (or something like that.)
80.1.213.25 (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of those student-assignment edits.  I rewrote the sentence to make it at least a little better, I hope. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 31 March 2013 

message: The Kinney 2002 article (105) appears to be misquoted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.112.47 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kripke, you mean?  Misquoted how? Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A misquote 

message: Here are just a few things I found while reading the article that may want to be considered when editing:
In the sentence in the introduction, fourth paragraph: “Insomnia can be grouped into primary and secondary, or comorbid, insomnia.” Comorbid should be co-morbid to follow along with the way the rest of the article has it typed.
Under the heading Types of Insomnia: transient should be linked to another page that describes the meaning of transient. This will be better so it follows the same set up like acute and chronic are linked. It will also allow a reader to better understand what transient means and connect with a better understanding of transient insomnia
Under the heading: Patterns of Insomnia, the word Two thirds should have a dash so that it is two-thirds.
Under the heading: Causes and comorbidity (Comorbidity should have a dash to be Co-morbidity)
The bullet point: “Life events such as fear, stress, anxiety, emotional or mental tension, work problems, financial stress, birth of a child and bereavement” would be more clear if it read “Life events that cause feelings of fear, stress, anxiety, emotional or mental tension for example: work problems, financial problems, and the birth of a child and bereavement”.
The bullet point: “Poor sleep hygiene, e.g., noise or over consumption of caffeine[23]” the “or over consumption of caffeine[23]” is unnecessary since it was stated in the first bullet point in the section
Under the subheading Cortisol: the word “poorer” when describing memory consolidation would be better sounding if replaced with “worse”
Under the subheading Estrogen: “Lower estrogen levels can cause hot flashes, change in stress reactions, or overall change in the sleep cycle, which all could contribute to insomnia.” The sentence may be better worded to avoid sounding repetitive by rephrasing to say: “Lower estrogen levels can cause hot flashes, change in stress reactions, which may effect the sleep cycle, which may contribute to insomnia.”
Under the heading: Non-pharmacological: it may help with flow to add in subheadings for each technique described. This will help break it up so it isn’t so bulky.
Overall I felt this article has been well written: my overall comment would be to make sure that there is consistency when writing words a certain way along with keeping in mind flow. Breaking sections up will help reader’s better search for specific information and also not feel so bogged down.
(Aschlang93 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: This article has a lot of good information in most sections but is lacking the extensive information in the area of prevalence. If it is seen in 58% of people in the United States it would be thought that more information about prevalence in gender, race,and region would be available.
Paula.Jacks (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This edit is rambling, addresses itself to "you" and has improperly formatted references.  It must either be reverted or improved.  Is it worth improving?  --Hordaland (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my students is working on this, I will have her come back to edit and fix the references. Mpetracca (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large addition, edit of 28 April 2014 

message: This section is devoid of information. It should either be expanded based on information from the sources referenced, or deleted. Millberlin (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Society

message: Lancet Neurology doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00021-6 JFW | T@lk 09:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: doi:10.7326/M14-2841 CBT works according to meta-analysis (DOI not yet registered at time of writing). JFW | T@lk 22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: To give more resources regarding alternate treatment methods for Insomnia, two Cochrane Systematic reviews have shown music therapy and acupuncture to be effective in treating insomnia.(Acupuncture, music) "Other alternative treatments available for insomnia include music therapy and acupuncture. Music therapy is more supported by research, and is favorable due to its easy administration and minimal side effects." Mktayloe (talk) 09 November 2015  —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Treatment Methods

message: Annals has this:
* doi:10.7326/M15-1781 - pharmacological management
* doi:10.7326/M15-1782 - psychological and behavioural interventions
Might be useful. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACP guideline 

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0084673/pdf/PubMedHealth_PMH0084673.pdf
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Insomnia

message: INSOMIA is a disease related to insomnia ...The major difference i thought is that in insomnia the patient will be cure after the period of one month or more than a month ..but as i see and did a little research that some people are unable to sleep even after a long period may be one year to six year ... 
                                                                                    
          < causes >                                                                                                                                       The main causes i saw are as follows.........
* Depression
* Stress
* Environmental problems(relation ship,or married life,or some sought of seduction )
* Having more oxygen in body than needed(because we fell a sleep when we found less of oxygen and large amount of carbon dioxide as oxygen helps to prepare ATP to save are energy.)
* High rate of in in taking Alcohol
          <symptoms >
some of the symptoms are ...
* Severe Fatique in body
* Feeling tired 
* Headache
          <Treatment >
AS i think i found no proper treatment ..I don't think drugs are a treatment because we can't take medicine for more than 3 to 4 weeks and till that time if this disease is not cure than it's useless  to take such high dose medicine .AS moving towards Alcohol i have seen people who never ever touch Alcohol,nicotine and such types of drugs in there life,but still suffering .
some of the treatment which doctors had reccomended are...
* Try to avoid tensions,stress.and be happy 
* Stop using Alcohol
* Try to make your relation better 
* Discuss your problems with your parents and adult
* Daily exsercise 
* Sleeping and waking time should be same everyday.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.83.197 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insomia 

message: Per the WP:Preserve policy, I am preserving this recently removed material here on the talk page. The material was removed by Petergstrom, who I recently warned about removing large chunks of material in this way without even trying to preserve the content. If Petergstrom is not willing to source material that can be easily sourced, then he should not be removing huge chunks like this. For example, I am currently working on the Human brain article. Imagine all of the important material that would be lost if an editor went there right now and removed everything that is primary sourced or unsourced. Yes, lost...unless an editor goes into the edit history to see what used to be in the article. This is why, like this edit shows, I am currently sourcing material there. 
I really don't see Petergstrom's justification for removing the following material that was sourced to a review: "A common misperception is that the amount of sleep required decreases as a person ages. The ability to sleep for long periods, rather than the need for sleep, appears to be lost as people get older. Some elderly insomniacs toss and turn in bed and occasionally fall off the bed at night, diminishing the amount of sleep they receive."      
I have no issue with keeping the primary sourced content out for now. My issue is the lost of encyclopedic material that can be easily supported by better sources. At a later date, I will see about sourcing a lot of what Petergstrom removed. 
Pinging Alexbrn, who has also expressed concerns about Petergstrom's editing styles. Alexbrn, if you have any ideas about how to improve the Mechanism section and on what should or should not remain, please note them here. I know that Doc James and Jytdog are already watching the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated the reasons for the large removal.  Firstly, there were lots of primary sources that were used.  Secondly, the scope of the text was very small, and outdated.  It needed to be updated, with more accurate information.  Petergstrom (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not state the reason for removal. I stated the reason for your removal being problematic. You need to learn how to follow WP:Preserve. I repeat: It is a policy. It is not simply a guideline. I've take an editor to WP:ANI before for recklessly removing material. This was last year, and WP:ANI agreed that the removals were reckless. What do you not understand about the fact that content being sourced to primary sources does not necessarily mean that you should take a hatchet to the content? You should be trying to preserve the content, especially when it can easily be sourced or updated. WP:MEDDATE isn't even as strict as you are making it out to be. I and others should not have to clean up after you. Preserving content can be something as easy as posting the removed material, or a link to the removed material, to the talk page (like I did above). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice how the mechanism section did not contain material from every possible cause of insomnia?  That is because that material belongs on a different page, not this one.  The content about menopause was totally irrelevant, and not to mention poorly sourced.  The removal was totally justified.Petergstrom (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What different page are you referring to? You still are failing to understand WP:Preserve. Even if content belongs on a different page, then you should take the steps to move it to that other page. Updating is easy. Can it be time-consuming? Yes, but that is no excuse for violating the WP:Preserve policy. If you look at Doc James's contributions, you will see that he often takes the time to preserve content, update sources, moving content to different articles. The complete opposite of what you do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: And stop pinging me to this section. This article is on my watchlist; it has been for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The menopause and PMS page both mention sleep troubles as a symptom, adding this pages content to those pages would be a redundancy.  The content was irrelevant, and poorly sourced-Why ask "Why not save it", when you should be asking "Why save it?"Petergstrom (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in trying to change the focus of my concern to menopause content. Furthermore, when something is relevant to two different articles, it should be mentioned in both articles. There is often content overlap on this site. Either way, I've made my point, and I stand by it. You would do well to study how Doc James edits. He is not a fan of primary sources for medical content, but he often trims primary sources instead of removing every primary source in sight. And he often replaces the primary sources, no doubt because he knows that the content is important to the topic and should therefore be retained. You should be trying to see whether or not what you are removing should be covered in the article. If it should be covered in the article, then look for better sources for the material. Do not simply remove everything in sight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Yes, better. Thanks, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Preserve]]: Recently cut Mechanism section  

message: Mini-edit war underway about hdl parameter. Please see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#hdl_-_OAbot_-_ELNEVER.3F Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: resolved. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hdl 

message: User:Zakblade2000:
Please -- 
# Read WP:LEAD
# Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Lead
# Read WP:VERIFY, especially WP:BURDEN
Please let me know if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Am moving this text here. It is an amazing claim and being based on 1930 new sources is not sufficient to justify its inclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an amazing claim, and probably shouldn't be in Insomnia even if true, given how little relevance it has to the usual condition. That said, having old sources is not a sin in and of itself, and he might be deserving of a small article -- I see there is one on the French Wikipedia -- provided the claims are reported with suitable care and scepticism. Even if comparatively recent neurological knowledge makes the claim pretty much impossible, having a clear discussion of it would be a net positive for lay persons in that area, such as myself.    — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging , who just added material in this very section.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken. Looking back, I definately should've added a new talk section for this information. I thought I would add the information to the article since the details that I added (a birth year and the date/location of the shooting) did not seem controversial and deserving of a discussion. Lemunz (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't think your edit was in the least bit controversial. The introduction of the case may have been, for which , whom I should have pinged earlier, is to (wiki)blame according to the eponymous tool. That said I think WP:BRD applies here, and we're D, so all is well. My take on it is to create a page for Paul Kern, and to have someone knowledgeable dissect the claims.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 11:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Ok, what I have missed is that this material was just merged from Paul Kern, so this isn't going to fly. Meh.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I personally don't get the rationale to merge -- to me it has very little to do with insomnia, beyond involving lack of sleep (from which he allegedly did not suffer!), and it's clearly not going to last long under WP:MEDRS given the total absence of non-newspaper sources. If it belongs somewhere, it's in association with spectacular brain injuries or claims thereabout.   — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, I was just trying to make some haphazard progress on a years-old "to-merge" queue. No hard feelings whatsoever if deleting the material is the right direction to go. Better that the merge actually occur and then get deleted, since the Paul Kern article itself was supposed to disappear long ago. I think maybe one option would be gathering other bizarre cases to make a better section, then maybe moving those to a new article. Fatal familial insomnia feels relevant, but closer to the case of Paul Kern are other cases of people who claim to live for a long time without sleep. These all have various degrees of poor documentation. Sometimes cultural differences are to blame; "doesn't sleep at all" can be used to refer to people who only ever sleep for an hour or two at a time. People in this general category include Al Herpin, Thai Ngoc, John Alan Jordan, Ines Fernandez. At the least, the people in this category should probably all be treated the same way unless there's quite solid medical evidence available.Dranorter (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Now that makes sense :-) Maybe they deserve an article just to debunk the BS the popular press spreads. Have added here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

text: However, the claim in this article is that those claims are "inaccurate."  The Sleeplessness book does not state that.  It cites the stories and leaves it at that. Smac794 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence

message: Today's Times (London, 15 Nov 2018) reports on a large meta-analysis which concludes that insomnia does not (!) shorten lifespan in humans (although it can cause poor health). This is intriguing because it is well established that length of sleeping time does correlate with life expectancy. Can a scientist please read the original meta-analysis and work it into the article? 86.180.158.120 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Times report: insomnia meta-analysis 

message: any high quality source to back up the claim ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walidou47 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the source listed mentions it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyperthyroidism as a cause for insomnia ?