This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. I've just joined this site to add information to this article "Brain fog" because I’ve been able to end my own brain fog. I've had brain fog due to Depersonalization. I just wanted to add that Clonazepam/Klonopin ended mine. So could we please update the treatment part of this article with this information please? I’ll be happy to help seek verification of this if it’s to be taken seriously.
Beg your pardon if I’ve made any errors in the guidelines of the talk page. I’ve tried to read the talk page guidelines although I’m dyslexic and I can only take so much in.
Quackstar84 ( talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Twri,
It's not really helpful to delete an apparently random selection of examples because there are no references in the article for any of them. People in treatment for major psychiatric conditions routinely report the symptoms described here. Go read Chemo brain, or search for that term at scholar.google.com and see if "general sensation of unusually poor mental function, associated with confusion, forgetfulness and detachment" is a reasonable description.
I'm not happy about the existence of this article, because it is not a true clinical entity, but the solution is to delete the whole thing, not just those things that you happen to dislike. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
We really can't use sources for the treatment section that do not even mention "brain fog". Not all forms of cognitive impairment are called brain fog. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"WhatamIdoing". What kind of editor are you though? are you being paid to edit? its not one companies or governments roll to edit this ant some advertising tool for business that includes the medical industrial complex. this encyclopedia is much bigger than just one industry. its a collective effort from everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)i delete it because a person complaining of a foggy head isnt going to be interested in something that is not clear, precise and easy to understand. its just not my prefered reference. those references you leave undeleted of mine are the weakes of the lot or either the longest ones. i dont think a person complaining of a foggy head wants to dive through 18 pages of research or an article that doesnt clearly explain how effective a treatment is to a particular symptom. Also your ocupational therapy only encourages a sufferers to live with there disability its not something i would encourage as it requires a lot of effort for little if any return. im not here for trouble i want to be helpful. i understand there are companies employing editors to edit wiki for there own benifit and that really bothers me. i even read some governments get in on the act if this is true wiki needs to be ignored and identified as a propaganda instrument nothing more nothing less. Astrotheology —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Some of these references do not refer to the condition described. Will look into things further soon.-- Doc James ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Doc James There were references directly mentioning "brain fog" but they keep getting "deleted" its as if one is not serious about helping the suffer at all. seems only they trying to hide credible scientific proven therapies to address the problem at its core which is proven with thousands of studies showing they clear up the mind exceptionally well. things that actually work. ocupational therapy is a usless therapy can never restore a persons quality of life only forces them to accept there disabilty and to learn to live with it. are we here to help or promote sickness?
Also references dont need to mention brain fog directly because brain fog is characterised by symptoms of confusion and memory deficits and alike. if there is something that targets those symptoms they will definately help the disease. are we here to talk politics or to help find solutions? This is a joke when credible and legitimate therapies are ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.220.36 ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
is your real name mason? are your friends on here doing the same as you, containing information is a full time job i bet. I read WP:Medical disclaimer and i can see it clearly explains "Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate" yet you want it to be completely accurate based on what you believe is accurate which isnt really accurate because conventional medicine ignores anything that works. they promote what is profitable. its controlled by medical cartel's in the industry. who is to say you know best? you dont know best the medical system is dysfunction beyond belief and thats where you get your info. its only a sickness industry designed not to cure but to only treat. they need sick people to keep the money flowing and the system running. no cures are ever coming my friend you can bet your life on that one. you keep publishing your trivial post, you probably are deliberately dumbing down the people of the world because i suspect you are paid to edit. your to involved in this editing thing to do it for enjoyment or to be helpful. i can see you only contribute what everyone already knows, nothing new no extra help. people might as well ignore wiki and just ask a regular GP they will get the same info they get here. so much for the collective knowledge of the internet will just kjeep listening to the flawed system. thanks for making this world a poorer one. im not using wiki anymore wiki is a joke. didnt they just get 6 million in donations? what for? to help spread disinformation and info that we can already look up in a conventional encyclopedia? ill say it again. wiki is a joke yet could have been something great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As per wiki policy I have moved the page to a more fitting name. Brain fog is slang for cognitive dysfunction. -- Doc James ( talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with calling it "brain fog" these are the terms some people use. Whats wrong with having both "cognitive dysfunction" as well as "brain fog" its not going to confuse or discredit the idea and will only be further helpful to the people trying to seek it. if the name is a problem make comments on how its totally fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Cognitive dysfunction (or brain fog) is defined
Really? By whom? -- 70.131.119.35 ( talk) 03:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good example of trying to maintain basic information and failing. Each editor really needs to think about their edits.
How did Hypothyroidism get changed to Hyperthyroidism? Well, now banned User:Twri went off on a "not enough citations so I'm going to delete everything" hack. Then slowly people said "but, uh, hypothyroidism" and added a line or two. Then somebody elaborated (!) that to "thyroidism". Then somebody picked Hyperthyroidism as the obvious 'meaning' of that isolated 'word'.
So now "too little" is "too much", yes? Noooo! (or... is it we don't know?)
So... do you know whether you are hypothyroid? It might be a convenient excuse (see Brain Fog). Shenme ( talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Deutsch links to the wrong German article, which re-links to the English Postoperative cognitive dysfunction. I don't think there's a German article for Clouding of consciousness yet. Qwesye ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article describes a broad, system-wide "clouding" of all Cognitive Functions. What about the clouding of Specific Functions, such as Spatial, Mathematical, Reading Comprehension, Speech Synthesis, Motor Skills, etc.. Also, the level of Insight, or ability of the sufferer to judge the degree or trajectory of Impairment? Shanjaq ( talk) 00:57, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.206.164 ( talk)
The result is no consensus. If we ignore the accusations of prejudice and so forth, what emerges is valid arguments being made by both sides, with neither argument having a clear logical advantage over the other, so no clear consensus can be gleaned form this discussion. In almost all cases, including this one, a no consensus result means we retain the status quo until a consensus to alter it becomes evident. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
Should clouding of consciousness be merged with delirium or Altered level of consciousness or given its own article? Many authors consider clouding of consciousness to be just one symptom of delirium rather than delirium itself. Merging would be like merging hallucinations with delirium or merging acne with "List of Skin Diseases". Shirly, acne deserves its own article. Coma should also get its own article. I believe a topic should be "short" enough to comprehensively write about it in a concise and complete way. Otherwise it would be sloppy. If you look at Altered level of consciousness you will see that delirium , coma , stupor , Somnolence , Obtundation and Mental confusion have their own articles!!! What is the prejuduce against clouding of consciousness? Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here.
Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here. Heelop ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Moving here from the article, as the section requires WP:MEDRS sources. -- Zefr ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Advice for WP:MEDRS sources? What was wrong with edits? Tangelopixi ( talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph seems to be based in conjecture and loose associations, potentially as WP:SYNTH. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
I know vaguely what “brain fog” is, in a general sense as I’ve experienced it – who hasn’t. Yet this article doesn’t help at all to give me a more precise and expanded understanding of the concept. I’d never heard of “clouding of consciousness” and this article has left me utterly confused. What exactly is clouding of consciousness? Is it identical to the concept of brain fog? The explanation is all over the place and difficult to understand. What leads to this phenomenon, both in terms of ultimate vs. proximate causes? It’s categorized as a symptom – what are the psychological and biological diseases associated with it? Are there treatments? Etc.
It seems like this concept has been so technically defined that it’s impossible to write about. Similarly, the regulation of sources seems to be so strict that nothing can actually be said. I understand that standards for referencing need to be very high for medical information, yet in this case it seems to lead to an inability to adequately explain, expand, and clarify the article. The problem seems to be that many sources describe exactly the phenomenon of "clouding of consciousness" or "brain fog," basically as described here (I think? It's not described here very clearly), but they don't actually give these symptoms a formal name. Yet, many sources still describe the subject of this article despite not naming it so precisely.
It also strikes me that "clouding of consciousness" is such a formal concept that it almost doesn't correspond with the way the average person uses the term "brain fog" as simply meaning that one's brain isn’t working normally and is slowed/blocked/foggy rather than the very technical descriptions presented relating to states of consciousness and delirium. If you read about "brain fog" on patient forums, for instance, it's rarely used in such a technical way. I was looking for an article describing this broader, more general use term ("brain fog"), along with its possible causes and it's a shame that doesn't exist as I’m now left to the speculation of blogs and clickbait. It makes me wish there could be a separate article just for “brain fog.”
I almost never edit Wikipedia articles - this is only my second because this article is far below my standards as an average user of Wikipedia. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia for general information, not a doctor or medical journal (as stated in Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable). But I guess my frustration should really be with the medical community for not working to research and understand this phenomenon better. Sorry for the rant, just disappointed is all since this is such a common and exasperating symptom.
Main Question: What exactly is meant by the medical term “clouding of consciousness”? If I understood it I would try to answer this myself, but I don’t. Is it actually equivalent to the much more casual and relatable concept of “brain fog”? It seems that if the definition were clearer, it would be easier to know what to look for when researching sources and expanding the article to make it more understandable to nonexperts (like me). For reference, the articles on Delirium and Fatigue seem to be much more effective. Tangelopixi ( talk) 07:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, WTF? Can someone please take the initiative to rewrite or retool this awful article so that it makes the least bit of sense whatsoever? Or is this some elaborate joke where the article is supposed to induce brain fog in people who read it? 142.68.172.51 ( talk) 04:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brain fog. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19#Brain fog until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi. I've just joined this site to add information to this article "Brain fog" because I’ve been able to end my own brain fog. I've had brain fog due to Depersonalization. I just wanted to add that Clonazepam/Klonopin ended mine. So could we please update the treatment part of this article with this information please? I’ll be happy to help seek verification of this if it’s to be taken seriously.
Beg your pardon if I’ve made any errors in the guidelines of the talk page. I’ve tried to read the talk page guidelines although I’m dyslexic and I can only take so much in.
Quackstar84 ( talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Twri,
It's not really helpful to delete an apparently random selection of examples because there are no references in the article for any of them. People in treatment for major psychiatric conditions routinely report the symptoms described here. Go read Chemo brain, or search for that term at scholar.google.com and see if "general sensation of unusually poor mental function, associated with confusion, forgetfulness and detachment" is a reasonable description.
I'm not happy about the existence of this article, because it is not a true clinical entity, but the solution is to delete the whole thing, not just those things that you happen to dislike. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
We really can't use sources for the treatment section that do not even mention "brain fog". Not all forms of cognitive impairment are called brain fog. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"WhatamIdoing". What kind of editor are you though? are you being paid to edit? its not one companies or governments roll to edit this ant some advertising tool for business that includes the medical industrial complex. this encyclopedia is much bigger than just one industry. its a collective effort from everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)i delete it because a person complaining of a foggy head isnt going to be interested in something that is not clear, precise and easy to understand. its just not my prefered reference. those references you leave undeleted of mine are the weakes of the lot or either the longest ones. i dont think a person complaining of a foggy head wants to dive through 18 pages of research or an article that doesnt clearly explain how effective a treatment is to a particular symptom. Also your ocupational therapy only encourages a sufferers to live with there disability its not something i would encourage as it requires a lot of effort for little if any return. im not here for trouble i want to be helpful. i understand there are companies employing editors to edit wiki for there own benifit and that really bothers me. i even read some governments get in on the act if this is true wiki needs to be ignored and identified as a propaganda instrument nothing more nothing less. Astrotheology —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC).
Some of these references do not refer to the condition described. Will look into things further soon.-- Doc James ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Doc James There were references directly mentioning "brain fog" but they keep getting "deleted" its as if one is not serious about helping the suffer at all. seems only they trying to hide credible scientific proven therapies to address the problem at its core which is proven with thousands of studies showing they clear up the mind exceptionally well. things that actually work. ocupational therapy is a usless therapy can never restore a persons quality of life only forces them to accept there disabilty and to learn to live with it. are we here to help or promote sickness?
Also references dont need to mention brain fog directly because brain fog is characterised by symptoms of confusion and memory deficits and alike. if there is something that targets those symptoms they will definately help the disease. are we here to talk politics or to help find solutions? This is a joke when credible and legitimate therapies are ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.220.36 ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
is your real name mason? are your friends on here doing the same as you, containing information is a full time job i bet. I read WP:Medical disclaimer and i can see it clearly explains "Wikipedia contains articles on many medical topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate" yet you want it to be completely accurate based on what you believe is accurate which isnt really accurate because conventional medicine ignores anything that works. they promote what is profitable. its controlled by medical cartel's in the industry. who is to say you know best? you dont know best the medical system is dysfunction beyond belief and thats where you get your info. its only a sickness industry designed not to cure but to only treat. they need sick people to keep the money flowing and the system running. no cures are ever coming my friend you can bet your life on that one. you keep publishing your trivial post, you probably are deliberately dumbing down the people of the world because i suspect you are paid to edit. your to involved in this editing thing to do it for enjoyment or to be helpful. i can see you only contribute what everyone already knows, nothing new no extra help. people might as well ignore wiki and just ask a regular GP they will get the same info they get here. so much for the collective knowledge of the internet will just kjeep listening to the flawed system. thanks for making this world a poorer one. im not using wiki anymore wiki is a joke. didnt they just get 6 million in donations? what for? to help spread disinformation and info that we can already look up in a conventional encyclopedia? ill say it again. wiki is a joke yet could have been something great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
As per wiki policy I have moved the page to a more fitting name. Brain fog is slang for cognitive dysfunction. -- Doc James ( talk) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with calling it "brain fog" these are the terms some people use. Whats wrong with having both "cognitive dysfunction" as well as "brain fog" its not going to confuse or discredit the idea and will only be further helpful to the people trying to seek it. if the name is a problem make comments on how its totally fitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Cognitive dysfunction (or brain fog) is defined
Really? By whom? -- 70.131.119.35 ( talk) 03:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a good example of trying to maintain basic information and failing. Each editor really needs to think about their edits.
How did Hypothyroidism get changed to Hyperthyroidism? Well, now banned User:Twri went off on a "not enough citations so I'm going to delete everything" hack. Then slowly people said "but, uh, hypothyroidism" and added a line or two. Then somebody elaborated (!) that to "thyroidism". Then somebody picked Hyperthyroidism as the obvious 'meaning' of that isolated 'word'.
So now "too little" is "too much", yes? Noooo! (or... is it we don't know?)
So... do you know whether you are hypothyroid? It might be a convenient excuse (see Brain Fog). Shenme ( talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Deutsch links to the wrong German article, which re-links to the English Postoperative cognitive dysfunction. I don't think there's a German article for Clouding of consciousness yet. Qwesye ( talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article describes a broad, system-wide "clouding" of all Cognitive Functions. What about the clouding of Specific Functions, such as Spatial, Mathematical, Reading Comprehension, Speech Synthesis, Motor Skills, etc.. Also, the level of Insight, or ability of the sufferer to judge the degree or trajectory of Impairment? Shanjaq ( talk) 00:57, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.206.164 ( talk)
The result is no consensus. If we ignore the accusations of prejudice and so forth, what emerges is valid arguments being made by both sides, with neither argument having a clear logical advantage over the other, so no clear consensus can be gleaned form this discussion. In almost all cases, including this one, a no consensus result means we retain the status quo until a consensus to alter it becomes evident. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
Should clouding of consciousness be merged with delirium or Altered level of consciousness or given its own article? Many authors consider clouding of consciousness to be just one symptom of delirium rather than delirium itself. Merging would be like merging hallucinations with delirium or merging acne with "List of Skin Diseases". Shirly, acne deserves its own article. Coma should also get its own article. I believe a topic should be "short" enough to comprehensively write about it in a concise and complete way. Otherwise it would be sloppy. If you look at Altered level of consciousness you will see that delirium , coma , stupor , Somnolence , Obtundation and Mental confusion have their own articles!!! What is the prejuduce against clouding of consciousness? Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here.
Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here. Heelop ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Moving here from the article, as the section requires WP:MEDRS sources. -- Zefr ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Advice for WP:MEDRS sources? What was wrong with edits? Tangelopixi ( talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph seems to be based in conjecture and loose associations, potentially as WP:SYNTH. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)
I know vaguely what “brain fog” is, in a general sense as I’ve experienced it – who hasn’t. Yet this article doesn’t help at all to give me a more precise and expanded understanding of the concept. I’d never heard of “clouding of consciousness” and this article has left me utterly confused. What exactly is clouding of consciousness? Is it identical to the concept of brain fog? The explanation is all over the place and difficult to understand. What leads to this phenomenon, both in terms of ultimate vs. proximate causes? It’s categorized as a symptom – what are the psychological and biological diseases associated with it? Are there treatments? Etc.
It seems like this concept has been so technically defined that it’s impossible to write about. Similarly, the regulation of sources seems to be so strict that nothing can actually be said. I understand that standards for referencing need to be very high for medical information, yet in this case it seems to lead to an inability to adequately explain, expand, and clarify the article. The problem seems to be that many sources describe exactly the phenomenon of "clouding of consciousness" or "brain fog," basically as described here (I think? It's not described here very clearly), but they don't actually give these symptoms a formal name. Yet, many sources still describe the subject of this article despite not naming it so precisely.
It also strikes me that "clouding of consciousness" is such a formal concept that it almost doesn't correspond with the way the average person uses the term "brain fog" as simply meaning that one's brain isn’t working normally and is slowed/blocked/foggy rather than the very technical descriptions presented relating to states of consciousness and delirium. If you read about "brain fog" on patient forums, for instance, it's rarely used in such a technical way. I was looking for an article describing this broader, more general use term ("brain fog"), along with its possible causes and it's a shame that doesn't exist as I’m now left to the speculation of blogs and clickbait. It makes me wish there could be a separate article just for “brain fog.”
I almost never edit Wikipedia articles - this is only my second because this article is far below my standards as an average user of Wikipedia. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia for general information, not a doctor or medical journal (as stated in Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable). But I guess my frustration should really be with the medical community for not working to research and understand this phenomenon better. Sorry for the rant, just disappointed is all since this is such a common and exasperating symptom.
Main Question: What exactly is meant by the medical term “clouding of consciousness”? If I understood it I would try to answer this myself, but I don’t. Is it actually equivalent to the much more casual and relatable concept of “brain fog”? It seems that if the definition were clearer, it would be easier to know what to look for when researching sources and expanding the article to make it more understandable to nonexperts (like me). For reference, the articles on Delirium and Fatigue seem to be much more effective. Tangelopixi ( talk) 07:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, WTF? Can someone please take the initiative to rewrite or retool this awful article so that it makes the least bit of sense whatsoever? Or is this some elaborate joke where the article is supposed to induce brain fog in people who read it? 142.68.172.51 ( talk) 04:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Brain fog. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19#Brain fog until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)