Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Segmented sleep redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added the original research tag as a quick google reveals that virtually every reference to this term comes back to EKIRCH who wrote the page linked at the bottom of the article. The term seems to be his invention? 84.71.164.145 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find “dorveille” in any of the French->English dictionaries I have. Is this a genuine (but obscure) French word? -- 75.15.117.228 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"There is no common word in English for the period of wakefulness between, apart from ... the generic watch". Would this be the original meaning of "night watch"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.196.72 ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a similar Spanish word: "duermevela", but I didn't find a translation into English or French. -- 213.27.187.78 ( talk) 09:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
'Segmented sleep' is the same thing as Polyphasic sleep, therefore I propose that they be merged. makeswell ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 4 citations from A. Roger Ekirch, and I believe that they give this article a more well-sourced appearance than it should have.
Citations [2] and [4], especially, sound like his personal speculations, and could easily be culled from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.128.92 ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
As the article is essentially based on a single source I've added words like 'theory' 'argued' etc. and changed the sub-heading too, so it's clear to readers that what Ekirch suggests is not necessarily so. I've done a bit of digging on Google and there seems to be little response from social historians to his theory - this may be because the book itself is so wide-ranging and therefore out of the purview of specialists, or because no one cares enough, or because it is considered to be too obviously wrong to be worth addressing. A pity as it's an interesting theory, right or wrong, that merits scholarly notice. I've found only one review, in the American Historical Review for December 2005, but as I don't have access to the full article I don't know whether it's a useful peer review or not. asnac ( talk) 08:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Where is Erkich (2001)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.1.121 ( talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
These look a little too much like someone has searched Gutenberg for the phrase "first sleep" and assumed that all results are talking about the practice of segmented sleep - the Wadd and Philadelphia Record quotes read more as if they're using the term "second sleep" to mean "sleeping in" for a while longer after waking from a full night's sleep. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be of use to the article to have a couple of examples of the texts the theory's originator is drawing from. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "This article needs additional citations for verification. May 2014" template be removed now? -- Hordaland ( talk) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone probably ought to note the extraordinarily obvious that infants and small children virtually require this bimodal sleep of their parents. More than, but not exclusive of, sunlight and circadian rhythms this probably inspires it. --Daniel kemper -- 12.157.110.195 ( talk) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Segmented sleep redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added the original research tag as a quick google reveals that virtually every reference to this term comes back to EKIRCH who wrote the page linked at the bottom of the article. The term seems to be his invention? 84.71.164.145 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot find “dorveille” in any of the French->English dictionaries I have. Is this a genuine (but obscure) French word? -- 75.15.117.228 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"There is no common word in English for the period of wakefulness between, apart from ... the generic watch". Would this be the original meaning of "night watch"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.196.72 ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a similar Spanish word: "duermevela", but I didn't find a translation into English or French. -- 213.27.187.78 ( talk) 09:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
'Segmented sleep' is the same thing as Polyphasic sleep, therefore I propose that they be merged. makeswell ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 4 citations from A. Roger Ekirch, and I believe that they give this article a more well-sourced appearance than it should have.
Citations [2] and [4], especially, sound like his personal speculations, and could easily be culled from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.128.92 ( talk) 18:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
As the article is essentially based on a single source I've added words like 'theory' 'argued' etc. and changed the sub-heading too, so it's clear to readers that what Ekirch suggests is not necessarily so. I've done a bit of digging on Google and there seems to be little response from social historians to his theory - this may be because the book itself is so wide-ranging and therefore out of the purview of specialists, or because no one cares enough, or because it is considered to be too obviously wrong to be worth addressing. A pity as it's an interesting theory, right or wrong, that merits scholarly notice. I've found only one review, in the American Historical Review for December 2005, but as I don't have access to the full article I don't know whether it's a useful peer review or not. asnac ( talk) 08:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Where is Erkich (2001)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.1.121 ( talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
These look a little too much like someone has searched Gutenberg for the phrase "first sleep" and assumed that all results are talking about the practice of segmented sleep - the Wadd and Philadelphia Record quotes read more as if they're using the term "second sleep" to mean "sleeping in" for a while longer after waking from a full night's sleep. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be of use to the article to have a couple of examples of the texts the theory's originator is drawing from. L.cash.m ( talk) 07:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "This article needs additional citations for verification. May 2014" template be removed now? -- Hordaland ( talk) 22:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone probably ought to note the extraordinarily obvious that infants and small children virtually require this bimodal sleep of their parents. More than, but not exclusive of, sunlight and circadian rhythms this probably inspires it. --Daniel kemper -- 12.157.110.195 ( talk) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)