Talk:Insomnia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Neuroscience | (Rated C-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Psychology | (Rated C-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insomnia article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Archives: 1 | ||||
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
