From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit to Medication Treatment[edit]

While this wiki page says that the use of nonbenzodiazepines, such as zolpidem, have not shown to be that effective, there has been past meta-analysis of 22 studies that show that Benzodiazepines and zolpidem significantly improve chronic insomnia (Benzodiazepines and Zolpidem Treatment for Chronic Insomnia. "Past meta-analysis has shown that both Benzodiazepines and nonbenzoidazepines, specifically Zolpidem, produce significant improvements to sleep in patients with chronic insomnia." Mktayloe (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2015

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence[edit]

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)

Paul Kern[edit]

Paul Kern (1884 - 1955?) was a Hungarian soldier during World War I.[1][2] On June 24, 1915, he was shot in the head by a Russian soldier during an attack on the village of Chlebovice in Galicia.[3] The bullet removed part of his frontal lobe. Rather than killing him, this made him unable to sleep.[4]

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.[5] 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.[6]

After having been injured and leaving the army, Kern moved to Budapest. While there, he worked daily in the Pensions Department.[7]


  1. ^ "Sleepless for 15 years. Curious effect of war-wound". The West Australian. 14 January 1930. Retrieved 3 September 2013. 
  2. ^ "L'homme qui n'a pas dormi depuis 22 ans" (PDF). L'Express du midi (in French). 30 December 1937. p. 2. Retrieved 9 January 2017. 
  3. ^ "Unique Case of the Man Who Hasn't Slept for 15 Years". The Cumberland Evening Times. 11 April 1930. p. 25. Retrieved 9 January 2017. 
  4. ^ "Sleepless man still a puzzle". The Milwaukee Sentinel. 25 September 1938. Retrieved 3 September 2013. 
  5. ^ "Doctor Baffled. Man who never sleeps. Going 24 hours". Chronicle. 16 January 1930. Retrieved 3 September 2013. 
  6. ^ "No sleep for 15 years. Night club life. Astonishing case of a wounded officer". The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser. 14 February 1930. Retrieved 3 September 2013. 
  7. ^ "Adelaide doctor thinks man could go without sleep for 15 years". The Register News-Pictorial. 15 January 1930. Retrieved 3 September 2013. 

WP:Preserve: Recently cut Mechanism section[edit]

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)


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)


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)