Talk:Insomnia/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 February 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ehand21, Jroth2, Jessegallagher1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

US Bias

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 [1].

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)

Okay, Highlandlord. Agree that information is relevant. Have reinstated it as a sub-section near the end. Section title is a mite clumsy, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.

Fatal insomnia

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but couldn’t a person help to cure fatal familial insomnia by getting nightly injections of a sedative?- EKN

That's generally not the problem - sedatives induce unconsciousness, not sleep. The difference is vast... refer to the relevant pages. -EJPD

Look at the article for Fatal Familial Insomnia.

Really, sedatives such as [diazepam] do nothing for them. Quite odd, rare disease. - BDC

Primary Insomnia

The article should address all forms of insomnia in a single location. I added a link to the June 2005 (August 2005 final report) of the NIH state of the science consensus report on manifestations and management of chronic insomnia. The report recognizes the term "co-morbid insomnia" rather than secondary insomnia. I also added a link to a nicely written entry from the National Sleep Foundation (U.S.) on insomnia. ~~Les Schmaltz~~

Fixed wording

I changed the double 'such as' statements which were awkward, if not grammatically incorrect.

Reverted useful info on using meditation to alleviate this problem

Someone removed the earlier section on the use of metta meditation to alleviate this problem, claiming: "Removed Occult Buddhist meditation advertising from middle of medical article."

Some points:

1) I have now included a VERIFIABLE PUBLISHED SOURCE for the information in this section.

2) Wikipedia (WP) is not a 'medical' encyclopaedia, or even a 'scientific' one - it is a compendium of human knowledge. Not all the information has to be formally scientific.

3) Which leads to the most important point: people often seek out WP because it provides just that kind of 'commonsense', USEFUL knowledge that isn't provided in formal encyclopaedias because such knowledge is regarded as too informal and perhaps even 'unscientific'. Yet it is still useful. And that is my main point in including this info: it is USEFUL for people. The person who cut the section out should think for a moment and realise that people actually do seek out articles like this one for help in relieving these kinds of things, including, but also beyond, their doctors' STANDARD, FORMAL advice. If they want exclusively MEDICAL, or SCIENTIFIC information, there are plenty of other sources. Wikipedia is an OPEN, BROAD compendium of ALL the human knowledge that has a reasonable amount of agreement as to it's validity and relevance. THAT is is it's strength. Otherwise, why bother? To read, or to write.

4) Buddhism is not 'occult'! This person clearly demonstrates not only their prejudice here, but also their ignorance. It's obvious from what they've written that they need to examine their real INTENTIONS in changing the page. Were they based on a desire to help other people by providing accurate, relevant and useful information - or was it something closer to prejudice, arrogance and possibly even a bit of enmity?

5) The section did not attempt to 'advertise' anything. For a start, it's author (myself) doesn't belong to any religious tradition, even though he has studied many. Simply reading the text makes this quite clear.

6) Returning finally to the point about people using WP as a source of the broader, less formal, more commonsense/everyday, more USEFUL knowledge, the reason I included this information is because I personally, and many others, have EXPERIENCED this technique to be actually useful, in the actual world! I've included it to HELP and INFORM people in the REAL WORLD, based on ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. If you have proof that it DOESN'T WORK, provide it and I will happily remove it. Until then, the information is sufficiently agreed-upon, mainstream and useful to be included in this common-person's shared compendium of knowledge, Wikipedia.

merge

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

Insomnia Cure (Trial) , Flinders University, Australia

"So far, 17 people have been through the trial. Preliminary results show most of them have vastly improved sleep following the treatment. It’s early days, but Leon hopes this could be a genuine breakthrough."

"Imagine being desperate enough to sign up for this. For 24 hours you’re not allowed to sleep for more than 4 minutes at a time. Every time you do fall asleep you’re woken up, but this tortuous sleep therapy could be the cure for chronic insomnia."

"Far from feeling tortured says Leon, insomniacs can actually find this experience exhilarating. For the first time, they realise they can learn to fall asleep. At the beginning of the trial, Lynn was taking more than 20 minutes to fall asleep. Now she’s taking just a few minutes."

See: http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s925385.htm

This information could be useful...

~~JohnI~~

Editor.../?

Any reason why my addition on Psychophysiological Insomnia was deleted? An explanation would be very helpful to me.

Sleep Onset Awareness Prevention Paradox

Did you receive the comment?

My point was that sleep is a trick, a sort of paradox, in that in order to fall asleep, you cannot be aware that you're falling asleep as you're falling asleep.

If you doubt this, try to fall asleep while staying aware that you're falling asleep, or stay aware of swallowing the saliva in your mouth, or of your breathing depth and rate. You'll never get to sleep with this torture. I would guarantee it. RB Feb 06

"Alleviating insomnia" section

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)

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)

== Added treatments + have a question ==

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)

It would also be nice to know the differences between the treatment of chronic and temporary insomnia..and whether there is a difference in treatment for different forms of insomnia.. (for example, is treatment for insomnia caused by anxiety different from treatment for insomnia caused by bipolar disorder...) 216.106.49.131 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Benziodiazapines, i.e. Diazepam, Lorazepam etc are durgs that have a very low abouse potential and are very safe drugs having a very high therapeutic index, but depending on the duration used, may cause dependence to indiuce Hypnosis. Sedation is a Calming effect on the mind and body commonly reffered in medical textbooks as Quiensence. Hypnosis, is the induction of sleep. Durgs such as Zopiclone on the other had have a lower abuse potential because of their shorter plasma half life, but again, should not be the primary means of treatment. Insomnia, is actaually a symptom that can be caused due to a multitude of reasons and just treating the symptom and not the cause is not a very wise long term solution to the problem.

Insomnia caused due and anxiety and Bipolar disorder are based on very different psycho-physiologial processes. Anxiety is considered to be an irrational fear where as Bipolar disorder is charecterised by periods of hyper exitibility known as the Manic phase and the depressive phase (often labelled as Manic Depressives) Insomnia is most common during the manic phases, where as the depressive phase is charecterized by excessive sleeping. Among the criteria for a clinical diagonsis for Clinical Depression is excessive sleep >16 hours a day. Induction of hypnosis and sedation is possible with the use of pharmacotherapeutics. In case of anxitey disorders, Benzodiazapines are the drug of choice as they are inherently Anxiolytic, where as Zopiclone does not have any anxiolytic properties whatso ever. However, resolution of the insomina will only occur whent he underlying cause for the insomnia is treated. Bipolar disorder is treated with mood stabalizing durgs such as Litium, and anxiety disorders are treated with psychological councelling. --Mohsin.parwez 19:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Explaining the "Contradictory" and "Factual accuracy" boxes

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)

Would Insomnia be considered a disorder of the nervous system? Because I'm working on a school project about any nervous system disorder, and I am interested in this subject.

Help please

Would Insomnia be considered a disorder of the nervous system? Because I'm working on a school project about any nervous system disorder, and I am interested in this subject.

Insomnia in itself isn't a disorder of the nervous system, but it could be a symptom thereof. That is to say, some nervous system disorders will cause insomnia. Hope this helps.

fear of sleeping

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)

Often times people that have an irrational fear of sleep or are preoccupied with their sleep fit in to the category of psychphysiologic insomnia.

Marijuana removal

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)

The fact that it is "illegal" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that its even more readily available than any other drug such as Ambien. It is effective, as Marijuana has always been known to induce drowsiness. Have you never tried it?--24.228.3.70 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

-Added "due to its illegal status" .. The previous wording is as if it was discounting the prior statement by claiming "no reliable sources". Marijuana is illegal, and there is a limited amount of research done on it due to its Schedule I listing. It makes no sense to delete this section, since it is an obviously effective method.

Alleviating insomnia

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)

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)

Critical pieces of information missing.

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)

primary and secondary

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) I think that all the people should just sleep.

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)

Orgasmic insomnia?

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)

Removed "and it sucks"

Aye indeed it does, as did the inclusion of this statement in the introductory paragraph. ;).

Unprofessional Article

"if they are not grieving correctly (pretending they are over it when they are not)" - who wrote this? it is not very professional. can the world not provide just one psychiatrist to clear this article up so it can be useful to me (i'm trying to learn more about my insomnia)

Who, where, when?

"There are, however, people who are unable to achieve stage 4 sleep due to brain damage who still lead perfectly normal lives."

Like the title says. Who? Where? When? How normal are they? What do scientists think about this? Do they suffer? Is stage 4 sleep irrelevant than? I keep reading on wikipedia that such and such stage of sleep can be skipped with no ill effects, but then I read that you can die from not sleeping.

Causes

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)

It doesn't need its own article. I think it needs to be moved back. If everything about insomnia had its own article there would be no article for insomnia itself. 194.81.151.68 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Should caffeine be replaced with stimulants to account for amphetamines etc. cyclosarin 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No sleep

• 33 years withouth sleep. --85.226.6.231 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed links

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)

So which is it? Can people stay up forever or not? What happens if you miss delta sleep? What happens if you miss REM sleep? If stages 1,2, and 3 don't matter, and you can miss 4 with no ill effects, and you can miss 5 with no ill effects, and there is no 6, than SURELY there is no ill effect of not sleeping at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.157.219 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why were my links reverted back to ones that are dead? My link was not spam. I merely fixed it since the site was updated and the link was no longer valid. Now the link to Insomnia from sleeptionary is back to being dead. What was the point? --James438

They were located in the same site. Please go and take another look and also look at what you reverted it back to because there were no adds whatsoever on the urls I fixed. They went to the same site even. The one you reverted it back to is a 404 error. Again, not a single ad on either of the links I fixed. Please confirm. --James438 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.225.209 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

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)

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)

Merger Proposal

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)

I'd rather not.--Rory666 09:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Proposed addition to non-medicinal treatments

I would appreciate comments on whether the following should be added:

Control of the circadian cycle is primarily by way of light sensors in the eye that are distinct from those producing vision, according to two studies published in 2001 These newly discovered sensors respond primarily to light at the blue end of the visual spectrum with maximum sensitivity at about 480nm. The production of melatonin by the pineal gland is diminished during the night if the eyes are exposed to light that includes the blue rays. Wearing eyeglasses that block blue light has been demonstrated to allow production of melatonin even when in bright surroundings. The glasses produce a condition that has been called “virtual darkness” . While allowing production of melatonin, the glasses let through enough light that normal evening activities like watching TV, working on a computer and reading can continue. Preliminary experiments with patients with bipolar disorder have shown that wearing blue blocking glasses for a few hours before bedtime reduces time to fall asleep and improves self rated sleep quality. Anecdotal evidence from hundreds of individuals with sleep problems confirm many people are helped by avoiding blue light in the hours before bedtime.

Rhansler 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Rhansler

This does not deal with the issue of insomnia. The second source is for shift workers, while the third is specifically for those with bipolar disorder. It does not belong in this article, as I have already stated repeatedly. So far, no other editor has voiced support for its addition, so please stop trying to add it unless someone else can agree that it relates to insomnia (and rewrite it to actually demonstrate that). AnmaFinotera 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your qualifications to make this judgement? We have evidence that hundreds of people have found that blocking blue light in the evening has solved their insomnia problem. Rhansler 14:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources themselves show the limits, which are shift workers and bipolar. Neither are general studies of normal insomnia. We? That sounds like you are personally involved in the study or something. Your own attempted addition does NOT support that it helps anyone with insomnia, only that it may help a few people go to sleep faster. Also, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for inclusion. AnmaFinotera 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking consensus on the above, I propose to add something along these lines under Treatment for Insomnia under Complementary and Alternative Medicine. “Avoiding exposing the eyes to light (especially blue light) in the hours before bedtime allows melatonin to start flowing which promotes sleep.” Rhansler (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a stand alone sentence, as it is still related more to sleeping habits rather than acute or chronic insomnia. It would fit into the first paragraph, though. How about we change it to:

Some traditional and anecdotal remedies for insomnia include: drinking warm milk before bedtime, taking a warm bath, exercising vigorously for half an hour in the afternoon, eating a large lunch and then having only a light evening meal at least three hours before bed, avoiding mentally stimulating activities in the evening hours, going to bed at a reasonable hour and getting up early, and avoiding exposing the eyes to bright light, especially blue light, a few hours before bedtime. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I also reworded some other bits which read badly anyway, and changed light to bright light since I'm presuming you didn't mean people should sit in the dark for a few hours, then go to bed ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The amount of light needed to significantly suppress melatonin is not that large, e.g. 200 lux or about 20 ft. candles. I guess it all depends on what one calls "bright". In any case, whether you include bright or not , I think this is fine. Rhansler (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Knol

Look at [2]. It would be better to improve this article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol. 83.5.242.20 (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If Knol has articles written by Stanford Scientists, then expect it to have depth, since the average level of expertise will be higher. But, Wikipedia has breadth, which is altogether a different sort of advantage.Tparameter (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same when I read the Knol article. I have tried to awaken interest in the article from the different projects that have tagged this article to be within their scope. Further I tried to go through the major language wikipedia articles to see if there were any version that could be translated, but as far as I could see they were kind of similar in quality to this one. --MoRsE (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Insomnia article needs work. Its on my "to do" list, but being such a huge topic, it is certainly a daunting task. It would be nice if one of the related projects would consider it for collaboration, since it is certainly a huge topic and such a common ailment that the article's low quality is almost embarrassing. I removed the Knol link because it seemed like a google search result link (I admittedly didn't check it and have no clue what this new Google Knol thing is). AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but the Knol article is so detailed and authoritative that it makes this Wiki article redundant and irrelevant.

It was written by a Director of Stanford University, we can't compete with that. I am now convinced that Wikipedia will lose space because of Knol at least on Health and medicine pages.

Either we put our shit together or Wikipedia will stop being reference.

EconomistBR (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many attempt to edit or write about a subject without knowing too much--like a High School student writing on some health issue.We have to respect someone who is more knowledgeable--especially medical related topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has some huge problems

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)

References seem to be broken

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)

Neurobiological Basis?

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)

Binaural Beats has a new address.

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)

The first letter of the 2 or 3rd word should never be a capital (or rarely). The vast majority of wiki pages only have a capital letter for the first word of an article page. I changed it from Binaural Beats to Binaural beats. Don't be afraid to try editing on wikipedia. There is always the preview button and the undo button in the history listing if you make a mistake.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

causes: full moon?

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)

There is a link there to a Swiss study, but I agree - one study on 31 volunteers is not enough evidence to make the implication the full moon can lead to insomnia. I'll leave it there for now, but I recommend it's removal. Aristeaus (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This page was last modified on 2 September 2008, at 06:30. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.128.191.98 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

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)

I removed one strange sentence about indian cannabis as a cure for insomnia, added by an IP. I couldn't find any source for Indian Cannabis being a treatment against insomnia, except in a homeopathic dose. http://www.hpathy.com/DISEASES/insomnia-sleeplessness-treatment-cure.asp --Stanzilla (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job removing the vandalism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

In this section Insomnia#Non-benzodiazepines the reference says that nonbenzodiazepines bind more selectively to the GABA_A 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)

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)

I used 3 citations. I would need to read all of the papers again to find one good one which cites in detail the binding affinities for all 4 of the Z drugs. Next time I read a good review paper I will try to shorten it to 1 or 2 citations rather than 3. I used some of these on the zopiclone wiki article a while back and they are cited there as well. I will keep it on my to do list. I didn't mean that I was literally going to cite dozens and dozens of papers on the article but meant on the talk page if someone doubted that zopiclone/eszopiclone bind unselectively or at least virtually no selectivity. I think that it looks better and more accurate now and should help the lay and professional reader understand the treatment options for insomnia a litte better now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

In Popular Culture

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)

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)

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)

• The Machinist - in which due to the protagonist believes the cause of his twisted interpretation of reality is caused by sleep deprivation.
• Fight Club - in which the protagonist suffers a form of insomnia which changes to another similar condition later. TigaV
• Insomnia by Faithless - the dance track, even though the lyrics aren't very involved, it's purely about Insomnia, and it was a chart breaking dance track for its time. 219.90.192.25 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This page was used on the terminator tv show: [3]-- 98.213.120.190 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

Links 2 and 3 to the WHO redirect to the main page rather than to insomnia. Krupo (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Copyright...

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)

I saw that mentioned elsewhere -- I think it probably constitutes fair use. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Insomnia technique

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)

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)

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)

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)

Guys - why some of the editors think that the technique I am describing, is not a real technique - is it because they are not aware of yoga or science of mantra. Actually, I was describing a traditional technique - please read this - http://healinglightseries.com/sleep.html and feel confirmed that the technique is a valid technique. And please discuss with me on my talk page. And if anyone has any objection let us discuss by tomorrow. If no one objects, I will consider that a consensus is reached and thereafter add the technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkrishn2.iitk (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

It is a valid eastern based relaxation technique. Relaxation approaches are acceptable strategies for combating insomnia. However, you need to cite using reliable sources of the method. The citations you have given so far are not reliable sources. Also be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight and also avoid giving an over descriptive "how to" intructions of the technique. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual but is an encyclopedia. If people are interested further they will google the technique. If you find a reliable source add a section for relaxation approaches and cite a reliable 3rd party source, a news paper, a medical publication even a sleep clinic webpage might be acceptable. Although peer reviewed sources are preferable and less likely to get reverted or challenged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just searched pubmed and could not find any mention of hindu or buddhist techniques. I did however, find this page in this book which discusses eastern relaxation approaches, eg meditation being used for the treatment of insomnia. This would make a reliable source for a relaxation or eastern approach section in this insomnia article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

paragraph removed from "Other substances" section

I have removed a paragraph that read as follows:

Another reported effective natural treatment of insomnia is the use of the amino acids L-Tryptophan or 5-HTTP (not both at the same time) thirty minutes prior to sleeping. These amino acids serve to aid your body and brain in the production of Serotonin and Melatonin, both essential for proper sleep [46]. These must be taken on an empty stomach for proper absorption. If the amino acids alone are insufficient at treating the insomnia, then you may suffer from a blood-sugar related issue such as hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. In this case, people have reported that taking Chromium/Vanadium together with Alpha Lipoic Acid - both of which aid in balancing blood sugar - fifteen minutes after taking the amino acids seems to be fairly effective. In the latter case it is also important to stay away from foods that can drastically alter your blood-sugar levels, such as chocolates and rich sweets.

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)

Cannabis Reference

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)

Mortality Survey

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)

It was the American Cancer Society who conducted the study. I don't live in the USA and I am not a medical researcher but I would imagine being a large organisation like that they would have the funding to do such studies. I would imagine it would involve mailing families in the USA and asking if they would be willing to take part in the study or else mailing lots of medical practices. The same way any other study assessing mortality would be conducted only on a much larger scale.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

The article this section cites states clearly: "Slight risks associated with 8 or more hours of sleep and sleeping pill use need further study. Causality is unproven." It is my opinion that this article should be rewritten to avoid making such strong statements as "sleeping more than 8.5 hours leads to a 15% increase in mortality" unless such claims can be backed up with a reliable source. 209.164.247.35 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Causality

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)

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)

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)

Location

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)

World statistics would be preferred if you can find any. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Improving

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)

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)

A study to add to the article

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)

I would suggest being WP:BOLD and adding it to the article. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Infobox image

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 August 23 version but it was removed in the August 27 version 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)

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)

Treatment outdated

I am starting this discussion with the {{Template:Outdated}} tag in the "Treatment for insomnia" section after some recent edits by user Tejas320, which have been undone variously by me and Looie496 [4] [5] [6]. 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)

• 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)

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)

Another poorly written article should be deleted and instead covered here: Middle-of-the-night insomnia. --Hordaland (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

1. 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.
2. 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)

IP edits

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)

Sounds fine to me, as in your decision to remove them is ok.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Vitamin C is weak antihistamine and reduces amount of histamine in body so it can be used as a supplement to help sleeping when using therapy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.235.245 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

fatal insomni

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)

It's called Fatal familial insomnia and it is mentioned in the article. --Hordaland (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Patterns of insomnia" section

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)

Roosevelt University's PSYC 336 course: Article Outline

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)

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)

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)

Notes

Sources

Instructor's comments

• Group, I like your idea of focusing on melatonin. Looie496 has a good point in that your addition might unbalance the article. Please proceed for now, and consult other editors later about how to separate this out into a different article.
• I'm looking forward to your research into whether melatonin is an evidence-based treatment for insomnia. Be sure to discuss limitations in research that addresses melatonin as a treatment.
• I edited your headings a bit to make your section stand out from other editors' comments

Instructor's feedback

• 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)

Critique 1

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)

Thanks! After rereading, there is definitely some good point brought up about condensing our paragraphs. We want the section to be as easy to follow and seeing this is a common theme of all the critiques its something we will work on and hopefully make the information easier to follow. Its good to see that our information is of pertinent but maybe just refashioned in the way it's presented. Justine28 (talk)

Critique 2

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)

Critique 3

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)

Thanks for your advice we will see what we can do for the wording and maybe changing around our sentences a bit to make them more reader friendly Justine28 (talk)

Critique 4

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)

I think overall you guys have been doing a good job reviewing and including so much interesting information regarding Insomnia. Doctors state we have to get at least 8-10 hours of sleep, but the average american only gets 7-8hrs a week of sleep. I enjoyed learning all the types and characteristics of Insomnia and to actually know how many people deal with this problem. ilsetap08Ilsetap08 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryanfinn20 Peer Review

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)

There is no cure for chronic insomnia.

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)

What's going on?

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)

Edit request on 31 March 2013

"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)

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)

A misquote

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)

Kripke, you mean? Misquoted how? Looie496 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

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))

Untitled

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)

Large addition, edit of 28 April 2014

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)

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)

Society

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)

Review

Lancet Neurology doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00021-6 JFW | T@lk 09:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Statistics for Insomnia

not true

"The average American gets 7-8 hours of sleep, instead of the 8 to 10 hours recommended by doctors. Children however are recommended more than 8 hours." This statement has nothing to do with insomnia. Anyone care to comment? josta59 16 May 2007

Alternative Treatment Methods

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)

ACP guideline

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)

Insomnia

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0084673/pdf/PubMedHealth_PMH0084673.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Insomia

      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)

WP:Preserve: Recently cut Mechanism section

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)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) 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)

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)

@Flyer22 Reborn: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• the sourcing in the cut content (diff) was bad - readers digest for pete's sake -- along with primary sources. But the role of sex hormones in causing insomnia was lost. I have restored it somewhat here sourced to recent reviews. Better, Flyer? Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, better. Thanks, Jytdog. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

hdl

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)

resolved. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

User:Zakblade2000: Please --

1. Read WP:LEAD
2. Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Lead
3. Read WP:VERIFY, especially WP:BURDEN

Please let me know if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence

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)

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)

Pinging Lemunz, who just added material in this very section. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Lemunz, I don't think your edit was in the least bit controversial. The introduction of the case may have been, for which Dranorter, 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)

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)

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)

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)

• fwiw, Kern's story gets a half a page in a chapter in the 2016 academic book, Sleeplessness, in a section that also discusses Albert E Herpin; just those two are discussed. The section starts out: "So, to end on another, lighter historical note. Everyone sleeps and needs to do so but, nevertheless, and over the last hundred years or so newspapers have latched on to claims from various individuals that they have not slept for years, and seem none the worse for it." The ref is: Horne, Jim (2016). "6: When Is Enough, Enough?". Sleeplessness: Assessing Sleep Need in Society Today. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer. p. 116. ISBN 978-3-319-30572-1.. So this is just kind of pop culture gossip - it isn't a famous case in the history of science/neuroscience like Phineas Gage where we learned a lot. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

Paul Kern

Paul Kern (1884 - 1955?) was a Hungarian soldier during World War I. On June 24, 1915, he was shot in the head by a Russian soldier during an attack on the village of Chlebovice in Galicia. The bullet removed part of his frontal lobe. Rather than killing him, this made him unable to sleep.

After being shot in the head by a Russian soldier and losing part of his frontal lobe, he was taken to Lemberg Hospital. After waking up at Lemberg, he never slept again. Ernst Frey, professor of mental and nervous diseases at the Eötvös Loránd University, treated Kern but was unable to find a cause for this abnormality.

After having been injured and leaving the army, Kern moved to Budapest. While there, he worked daily in the Pensions Department.

____

Times report: insomnia meta-analysis

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)

hyperthyroidism as a cause for insomnia ?

any high quality source to back up the claim ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walidou47 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes the source listed mentions it.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BGreeen100.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 January 2021 and 1 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caimolgn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)