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:

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been marked as needing an infobox. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

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) reply

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) reply

Maybe we should mark this for deletion again.-- Doc James ( talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Who are you "WhatamIdoing"? you edit and delete almost right after i contribute every single time with your unhelpful, usless information. its as if your employeed to edit and re-write wiki are you? wiki is a usless source of info if thats the case.

this is a peoples encyclopedia its not the duty for authorities to edit or else wiki just becomes just another corporate propaganda cheerleader. wiki was designed as a collection of ideas from the community not corporat and government spin. wiki is usless if you guys keep spreading your propaganda. im sure people want to get away from the status quo and seek wiki for fresh information.

stop editing my helpful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotheology ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm an editor, exactly like you, "Astrotheology". The only difference is that I have somewhat more familiarity with Wikipedia's mandatory policies about verifiability and reliable sources and ban on original research than you apparently do.

I'd be happy to have this article include all of the verifiable, reliable, directly related information about brain fog in humans. However, you seem to be adding information that is about any kind of cognitive impairment. For example, you've added sources about Alzheimer's, which does not involve brain fog. You've also added case studies and animal studies, which are notorious for being proved wrong later. This sort of problem is why Wikipedia recommends that you use reviews instead of original research papers.

Please note that your recent deletions involved deleting the sources that you provided. I've just provided the complete, written-out citation instead of the URL. Providing the entire citation (authors' names, article name, publication date, and so forth) allows the reader to figure out what the source is without clicking the link, and it also allows us to find it later if the website ever changes the link. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

"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)

No, I'm not paid to edit anything. I'm a volunteer. I assume that you are, too. If you look at my contributions, I think you'll find that I edit in far too many areas to justify these inappropriate accusations of being a public relations employee.

Now can you tell me why you're deleting the fully written-out references that you provided? Do you think it hurts the reader to see:

• Thatcher RW (2000). "EEG operant conditioning (biofeedback) and traumatic brain injury". Clin Electroencephalogr. 31 (1): 38–44. PMID  10638351. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored ( help)

instead of just the bare URL, like this:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351

I can't imagine why you keep doing this, but perhaps you don't want the reader to know the name of the author, the date it was written, the title of the paper, and so forth? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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). reply

I understand that your refs are weak, and that you might want to upgrade them. However, you don't seem to understand my issue. In one instance, you have been deleting the written-out full reference to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351 and replacing it with http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638351. Note that these are the same paper. Why are you deleting the written-out full reference to the paper and replacing it with a link to exactly the same paper? Did you not bother to read the written-out reference to see that you were deleting and replacing the same paper? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I have looked threw the references provided and NOT one of them mentions brain fog. This is a problem. Is this term verifiable? I see there has been discussion to delete it in the past.-- Doc James ( talk) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

We're not here to do anything at all for people that are suffering from diseases. This is not a self-help project. The point behind the encyclopedia is to collect verifiable information. See for example, WP:Medical disclaimer and WP:MEDMOS#Audience.

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) reply

If the point of the article is the non-medical term "brain fog", then we really do have to have sources that specifically mention that term. If the point of the article is anything-that-makes-your-brain-not-quite-work, then the list of acceptable sources is dramatically larger. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I'm not sure that this is the best choice. I think that brain fog is somewhat more specific than cognitive dysfunction. For example, dyslexia is a type of cognitive dysfunction, but it doesn't involve confusion, forgetfulness, or other classic "brain fog"-type symptoms. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with WhatamIdoing. As someone who is suffering from "brain fog" right now, I can tell you that it's a very specific condition that's not synonymous with cognitive dysfunction. I'm not even sure if it should be considered a subset of it; those who have had "brain fog" will know that the term is probably the most accurate description of the symptoms, even though it's not the most scientific and I suspect a vague description with many possible causes: It feels like a fog has descended on your brain and you're in a haze that makes everything less lucid. It doesn't impair my cognitive abilities, they're still here, but like driving through fog it's just much more difficult to make use of them. The feeling is as present and physical as would be a pain in my leg. Just substitute "there is pain in my leg" with "there is fog in my head". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.12.81 ( talk) 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC) reply

(Same author as above) It turns out my brain fog was most likely due to a vitamin D deficiency, and now after treatment is mostly gone. I'm still not sure exactly what caused the foggy feeling apart from the generic "vitamin D deficiency", but I am sure it's not the same as cognitive dysfunction. The feeling was entirely "physical" and later worsened to include headaches and dizzyness. The closest thing I can compare it to is the "stuffy" feeling you get with a flu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.12.81 ( talk) 09:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I don't mind have a page called Cognitive dysfunction. However, since brain fog appears to be a small subset of cognitive dysfunctions, then using that title for this subject is sort of like having a page called Food but solely including information about carrots. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Cognitive dysfunction (or brain fog) is defined

Really? By whom? -- 70.131.119.35 ( talk) 03:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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) reply

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.

• Support merge/redirect. Obviously, I think the answer is yes. This current article, insofar as it is coherent and properly sourced, seems to deal with delirium. This article was previously entitled "brain fog", and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain fog there was evidently a clear consensus to merge/redirect the article. I'm not clear what sort of appropriately sourced content exists here that can't be easily merged into delirium. MastCell  ^Talk 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support. Most appropriate merge candidate. JFW |  T@lk 22:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support redirect. I agree that the article as it stands doesn't merit its own article and would support a redirect. Delirium seems to be an adequate redirect target as most of the material here discusses delirium, but Altered level of consciousness may be a better general redirect target as well. Yobol ( talk) 22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support not redirecting.Delirium is not universally defined as the same thing as clouding of consciousness. Many authors consider it to be just one symptom of delirium rather than delirium itself. The unitary interpretation of delirium is very controversial. This is like merging hallucinations with delirium. Heelop ( talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, demanding to merge clouding of consciousness with Altered level of consciousness is like demanding to merge acne with "List of Skin Diseases". It is sloppy writing. Coma deserves its own article like clouding of consciousness does. A topic should be "short" enough to comprehensively write about it in a concise and complete way. 23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Heelop ( talk)

What the hell?! 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 prejudice against clouding of consciousness? Lets stop the sillyness!! Ooh, I get it. You want to deny that mental fog exists. 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Heelop ( talk)

Is that really what you're going to go with? A conspiracy against the term "mental fog"? And why did you remove the sourced material linking delirium and clouding of consciousness? One might think that you're altering the article solely to support your position in this redirect discussion. MastCell  ^Talk 06:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

As usual MastCell, you make no logical sense. (1) It is documented right there in the articles for deletion discussion on this talk page that you guys think that mental fog is not a real entity and was totally conspired by alternative medicine to make it a real entity. Are you telling me that you think "brain fog" cannot possibly be the same thing as "mental fog"? (2) It is right there in the lead that it is the "main pathophysiological feature of delirium" thus "linking" them so your "altering" conspiracy theory is bizarre. I said "some" think it is one and the same. I gave my arguments for not merging summarized under the request for comments banner but you are ignoring them. (3) Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here. Heelop ( talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

As to (1), I don't think anything of the sort, nor does anyone who commented at the AfD as best I can tell. This discussion is becoming increasingly bizarre, and you've exceeded the 3-consecutive-exclamation-point limit after which further constructive dialog seems unlikely, so I'm going to leave it at that. MastCell  ^Talk 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Noone who commented at AfD thinks mental fog is not a real entity? Everyone can read the AfD and see how bizarre your comment is. Unless you actually think "brain fog" is not the same thing as "mental fog" but you have not argued that. You appear to want to make bizarre complaints about punctuation rather than make logical arguments that have substance. Heelop ( talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Even Delirium tremens has its own article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is clearly prejuduce going on here. Heelop ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

As I already said, delirium is defined as a syndrome or a set of symptoms. Clouding of consciousness is just one of them. In the afd one said "Let's stick to medical terms that appear in medical dictionaries". Medical books do not define clouding of consciousness and delirium as synonymous. Just because there is a link or relation does not mean they should be merged. Another in afd said "I think there's a need for distinction between the various types of mental confusion that exist and condition-specific pages". Heelop ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Support merge or a couple - Clouding of Consciousness and obtundation should be merged into Altered level of consciousness as the former two are nonspecific descriptions of altered level of consciousness. I am musing on whether Mental confusion should be more of a dab page as well - to delirium and Altered level of consciousness. The whole subject of level of consciousness would be better served by two or three robust pages than piecemeal as is. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Firstly, it is unclear why "Consciousness" is capitalized in this article - and another point of disagreement underlies whether this set of articles (about nine in total) is based on a bunch of medical definitions or simply abnormalities in consciousness. While it seems to be unspoken consensus that there is no difference, it is problematic that mental confusion would be presented solely as a symptom of some disease, rather than a transient state of mind. Delirium and delirium tremens are deleterious conditions based on medical classifications, and thus deserve their own separate articles as long as they are standard medical definitions. Judging just by the article name alone, "Clouding of Consciousness" sounds more like a transient lapse in mental condition (although sometimes quasi-permanent) rather than a medical condition, though it can also be a symptom. For anyone now medically confused over this topic, flow (psychology) and altered state of consciousness are two parallel articles not commonly linked to within these symptom articles. This article is already clear that the scholarly definitions are ambiguous over whether brain fog and Clouding of Consciousness are the same thing, where their only connection appears to be a weather metaphor. "Brain fog", by the way, seems to be a parallel to memory lapse, which does not have an article: relevant articles are found at amnesia, memory loss, absent-mindedness, long-term memory#disorders of memory, [[dissociative identity disord[brain damage]] and settled insanity. In this case, does "memory lapse" deserve it own article because it is commonplace, no article because it is not a medical condition, or age because it can refer to many things? ~ AH1 ^{( discuss!)} 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support retention I don't think it matters much. I have read the text, altered it slightly and added links to give it more context. I would have said merge, but if the term is indeed medically recognised and diagnosable, there is no categorical basis for mandating a merge if you prefer it as a separate article. It is all very well arguing that it is vague and can be merged in along with a number of apparently similar concepts if someone is feeling very energetic and also competent to do so without degrading either the information content or information accessibility for the reader, but merging all those terms is likely to produce an unwieldy, large, difficultly maintained article with problems of perspective. There is much to be said for keeping the various topics in separate articles with adequate links between all of them. The fact that an article is small has very little to do with whether it earns its presence. But for the love of Mike, will you cool it!. Whether you merge or not, what is all the shouting about? JonRichfield ( talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support retention - As a person diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder as well as severe depression, I have heard the terms "brain fog" and "clouding of consciousness" from more then one psychologist or psychiatrist. I definitely do not nor have I ever suffered from delirium, however I have experienced what could only be described as "brain fog" from time to time. None of the other articles mentioned above come close to describing my experiences, and as far as I know these are not uncommon amongst people with diagnosed anxiety and depression disorders. I realize this might be anecdotal, however I think it would be ridiculous to merge or redirect this article with the delirium article. They are sharply distinct experiences. However I do not think brain fog is clinically or medically significant, so I do not understand why it would need to be so to merit it's own article. It can be an intensely uncomfortable experience, but it does not impair a person's functionality in any meaningful way. Although I would be apprehensive about letting someone with brain fog operate heavy machinery or engage in dangerous tasks that require fine motor skills or rapid thought. 69.165.164.96 ( talk) 10:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving here from the article, as the section requires WP:MEDRS sources. -- Zefr ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

The cause of clouding of consciousness can be difficult to determine as it is a reported side effect of many health issues including allergies, food intolerances, nutritional deficiencies, dehydration, hormonal imbalances, pregnancy, menopause, diabetes, migraine, brain damage, infectious diseases, demyelinating diseases, autoimmune diseases, anemia, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Sjogren's syndrome, certain drugs, chemotherapy, depression, anxiety, stress, and lack of sleep.

Advice for WP:MEDRS sources? What was wrong with edits? Tangelopixi ( talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

MEDRS sources are systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. I haven't seen any for these indications, but will continue looking. -- Zefr ( talk) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

This paragraph seems to be based in conjecture and loose associations, potentially as WP:SYNTH. -- Zefr ( talk) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

It may be represented in such conditions as minimal hepatic encephalopathy (also known as subclinical hepatic encephalopathy or latent hepatic encephalopathy), ^[1] subclinical Wernicke's encephalopathy, candidiasis, ^[2] Lyme disease, ^[3] anaphylaxis, ^[4] intestinal tapeworms ^[5] and lupus erythematosus. ^[6] The condition whereby intestinal faecal toxins bypass the liver poisoning the brain causing clouding of consciousness used to be referred to as "autointoxication" but is now referred to as "hepatic encephalopathy". ^{[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]} Minimal hepatic encephalopathy reduces quality of life by impairing work activities, social interactions, and driving, but it does not affect basic daily life activities such as dressing, personal hygiene, eating, shopping, answering the phone, or taking public transportation. ^[1] Patients with MHE may even exhibit normal cognitive performances, but overall productivity may suffer from inattentiveness and fatigue secondary to attention abnormalities. ^[1]

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) reply

Suggest you introduce the topic to the Wikiproject Medicine talk page at WT:MED. Best that it's kept to a focused issue. -- Zefr ( talk) 15:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply