text:
Talk:Cluster headache

Cluster headache attack itself is not life-threatening
This is false as people who suffer from cluster headaches have been known to commit suicide to stop the intense pain. Therefore, a cluster headache attack could be considered life threatening as it could cause a reasonable person to commit suicide that otherwise would have not ended their life if they did not suffer from such a condition. Source: http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/headaches-cluster Quote: More than half (55%) of respondents reported experiencing suicidal thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.181.125 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The keyword here is "itself". A CH attack itself is not life-threatening. Suicidal thoughts and acting out on those are a possible indirect result of the attack. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cluster headache can be fatal if not managed properly. If the patient forgetfully eat some food items that increase the severity or frequency of attacks during the cluster his condition can aggravate seriously as he can not sleep between attacks. Sleep itself will trigger more attacks. Only very high doses of steroids like 2mg/kg/d may help in such situation. The tired, sleep deprived patient may need hospitalization. I think of this as Status of cluster headache. I find, as a patient and physician, the most serious food items that looks benign are fish, chocolates and bananas. Ezzsakr (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Then this should be clearly noted. People use Wikipedia as a first-line medical source whether or not that is right, and this is absolutely a relevant and somewhat unique feature of this disease, wherever the information is put categorically.

Medical sourcing and content guidelines
Please review WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, including WP:MEDMOS. Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches helps understand how to apply Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines, and where/how to find secondary review sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary studies
This article is rife with primary studies: see WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT (news or a support forum), and WP:MEDRS. I've removed this text for discussion. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Suicide" headache
Some of the sourcing in this article is extremely poor. This is a marginal review (appears to be only a partial review combined with a study on a small sample); nonetheless, mentions "suicide" headache. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Suicide disease" is also applied to trigeminal neuralgia... and the sourcing there for this term is poor too. It is known that a tiny fraction of patients with chronic and severe craniofacial pain conditions will commit suicide, but I would not say that they are commonly referred to as suicide headache or disease, at least in medical publications. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lesion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a case for "suicide headache," which surely is not used much in medical literature (I've seen it one or two places, but it's not worth looking for), but in response to Lesion's post, I'd point out that in the largest study to date of CH patients, involving surveying 1134 people, 55% of the respondents said they had considered suicide, 2% said they had attempted it, and 50% had engaged in self-injurious behavior during a CH attack. (Rozen, T., MD, and Fishman, R. "Cluster Headache in the United States of America: Demographics, Clinical Characteristics, Triggers, Suicidality, and Personal Burden," published in Headache in 2011). Anyone in the CH community has known multiple people who have killed themselves.  I apologize for "debating" a settled point here, and I won't do it again I promise, but I don't think these are the "tiny fractions" that Lesion is suggesting. Chfather (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Debate is healthy, please feel free. Here is another source which mentions it:
 * -From the Nesbitt 2012 review, already used in the article. So yes we should should mention it imo. Not sure how others feel. Lesion  ( talk ) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's needed, here's an additional usage from an article already cited in the entry (Beck, et al, "Management of Cluster Headache"): "Called “suicide headache” because of its severity . . ." Chfather (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's needed, here's an additional usage from an article already cited in the entry (Beck, et al, "Management of Cluster Headache"): "Called “suicide headache” because of its severity . . ." Chfather (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be more explicitly stated in the article, that the pain of cluster headaches can and DOES lead to suicide attempts and completion among sufferers. I have tried to get this put in the article multiple times and despite including sources-- *good* sources and sometimes upwards of five or six for two sentences-- it never sticks. Why, I really don't know, and once again I must stress I feel that this is of utmost importance. I have a couple more sources than just the ones mentioned here but the aforementioned study is indeed the largest that discusses it. The psychological component of this disease is a huge part of management and prognosis, especially with regards to self-harm and suicide, and it's barely even mentioned in the article. I don't have an account so I'm not sure how to sign this. Guest?
 * Moved the content here . I was okay where it was in the symptoms section under pain.
 * What other high quality sources do you have? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

^^Great, at least that's something. I went in and fixed two minor typos in the sentence you inserted but it still reads exactly the same. Is there a better place (or any place at all) to attach some of the sources I have on this issue besides the article itself? I may have lost access to some of them as a result of no longer having full(er) access to JSTOR or PubMed-- just can't remember where they all came from-- but I'm fairly certain that I still have at least a few that discuss this. In fact, the largest study that examined this problem at least partially isn't even the one currently cited in the article. It was mentioned above, "Rozen, T., MD, and Fishman, R. "Cluster Headache in the United States of America: Demographics, Clinical Characteristics, Triggers, Suicidality, and Personal Burden," published in Headache in 2011." There are others, so let me know what I can do. (Same guest as above)
 * We typically only use journal articles marked as "reviews" per WP:MEDRS. One can limit their search to reviews. This article is a primary source. Other good sources are position statements. Happy to discuss other sources.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Redundant, repetitive and off-topic prose
This article says the same things over and over and over, often based on primary sources, looking like individual researchers wanted to work their links in. I'm reducing some of the redundant prose, but by no means all of it; that should be done better when the article is thoroughly rewritten to reflect more recent secondary reviews-- since the article is so poorly sourced, it's hardly worth it at this stage to clean up all the prose. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There are 2 cochrane reviews, one is already used, here is the other:. Lesion ( talk ) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I put that Cochrane review in, but expansion needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Suggest structure the features of cluster headache according to Socrates (pain assessment), see for example Atypical facial pain for how this looks. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm typically not a fan of listified prose, and another problem I have with the table at Atypical_facial_pain is that the citations are disassociated from the text, and there's a whole long list of citations above the table where it's not apparent what is citing what. I guess here, whatever works and whatever others want, but I don't think something like at AFP would ever get through FAC (just saying), where prose is preferred to lists and tables, and citations should be attached to the text they verify.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the table needs inline citation. That is a problem that needs fixing. It is not really MEDMOS to use socrates, in fact I recall there is something in there about not using mnemonics at all, but I think it is a nice structure to apply to the signs and symptoms section for conditions characterized mainly by pain. Lesion  ( talk ) 00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Back to psilo/LSD
I would really like to improve the discussion that is there now, but I want to do it right. Maybe you can advise me. My concerns relate to these two elements: 1. Vasoconstrictors such as ergot compounds are sometimes used immediately at onset of attack. Cafergot, a vasoconstrictor combination of caffeine and ergot, has been demonstrated in some cases to abort cluster headaches within 40 minutes of ingestion. BOL (2-bromo lysergic acid diethylamide), a non-psychedelic form of the ergot-derived psychedelic LSD, has shown promise in the treatment of cluster headaches.[unreliable medical source?][48] 2. Some isolated case reports suggest that ingesting LSD, psilocybin or cannabis can reduce cluster headache pain and interrupt cluster headache cycles.[49]

Re #1, there really is no relationship between cafergot and BOL-148, except that they both contain ergots (as do some other CH meds mentioned elsewhere in the article). So, I would make a new topic. Re BOL-148, I can edit to provide a link to a peer-reviewed journal, Cephalagia, which published the results of a small trial of BOL-148 for people with CH. But I think that's a "primary source." Would it allow for removing the "unreliable medical source" note that there's now (deservedly so)? BOL-148 is different from cafergot, among other things because it seems to be not just an abortive (and not just an generally ineffectual abortive, as cafergot is) but also a possible preventive. For people with CH, the difference between maybe aborting an attack in 40 minutes and preventing attacks altogether is enormous.

And the fact that BOL-148 works is evidence that the next part -- about LSD, etc. -- is not some whackjobs taking drugs to escape their pain. BOL-148 works because it has LSD in it. So, Re #2. I don't know what "some isolated care reports" means. As far as I know, there is exactly one report of cannabis helping someone, whereas research conducted by medical professionals has shown hundreds of cases in which CH patients receive relief from psilocybin, LSA, and LSA. Yes, these are anecdotal self-reports collected by those medical professionals, and not clinical trials, but since the substances are scheduled, there's no more than that that can be done. I could cite several such reports (and I note that LSA, which is not mentioned in the current text, is the subject of some of them), but again I fear that this will be removed as "primary sources."

There are probably thousands of CH sufferers using LSA, LSD, and psilocybin to treat CH, with no lasting side effects (LSA, for that matter, is effective even without short-term psychedelic "side effects"). I understand someone's reluctance to give this treatment what I think of as its proper attention here -- it's not medically proven; it might sound weird or scary to some people; and the substances are scheduled. At the same time, it is saving lives every day.

If you're going to delete any edits I make, I guess I just won't bother doing so. But if there's a way to provide this information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, I would be happy to take a shot at it.chfather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfather (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 2 main issues when writing about medical treatments. First is to use a good source, (see: WP:MEDRS). Essentially, a fairly recent (i.e. last 5-10 years) review paper from a peer review journal (ideally a systematic review), OR a mainstream medical textbook. Mistake many people make is to use animal studies or human studies. Second main issue to make sure that the Wikipedia article reflects how a medical condition is treated in the real world. For example, if 95% of doctors use drug A to treat cluster headache in reality, we should not talk excessively about drugs B-Z. Hope that helps. Kind regards, Lesion  ( talk ) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chfather; Lesion's explanation is a (cool) way of explaining Wikipedia's due weight policy.  Another factor in writing for Wikipedia is that Wikipedia text must be verifiable to and rely on secondary sources; we can't engage in original research by analyzing or reporting on primary research studies that haven't been reviewed by secondary sources (that is, independent from the researchers who did the studies)-- our medical sourcing guidelines prefer secondary reviews to primary studies.  Primary studies are individual case reports, trials, studies whether controlled or not, animal studies, surveys, and other studies that-- even if published in peer-reviewed journals-- haven't been the subject of a secondary review from independent authors examining their conclusions.  In addition to that, there are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not-- we aren't news, we aren't recent, we aren't for support-- a whole lot of things.  We should only be reporting and giving due weight to what other secondary sources have already stated, in encyclopedic tone.  An encyclopedia doesn't strive to be current in the same way the daily news does; it strives for long-term accuracy.  To that end, I have gone through and flagged numerous primary sources and laypress reports that don't meet our sourcing requirements, shouldn't have been in the article, and need to be replaced with secondary reviews.  I've also removed some text that simply shouldn't be here at all without secondary sources (treatment issues, etc), and flagged the secondary reviews now (correctly) in the article by adding the word "Review" to their citations.  On the topic of psilo/LSD, there is mention of it in one secondary review, and that is in the article now; unless that review has more to say on the topic, or unless other secondary reviews surface, it won't be productive for you to write from laypress or primary sources on the topic of psilo/LSD.   This article was (is) actually in pretty bad shape, making use of very old sources, including a lot of repetitive text and editorializing; I've only made a first pass at cleanup, and some other editors will probably go through soon and try to beef it up.  It will benefit everyone for the article to be as good as it can be, as it's not close now!  If you want to know more about how to research for writing medical content on Wikipedia, Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews in PubMed.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to reply to your kind replies, so I hope this isn't a mess. I just wanted to thank you for your help, and say that I do think that the current edits have made the entry much better (regardless of how I feel about the diminished place of psychedelics as treatments). I might try an edit at some point, if I think I can do that within the rules and still add value, and I will now apologize in advance if it turns out to be something you have to take down. Chfather (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What was in the article before was uncited; if you can propose text here on talk, based on the secondary review, we can discuss whether that source has been given due weight. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let me see if I can do it correctly. The second sentence of the uncited text says >>A self-reported interview of 53 cluster headache sufferers taking LSD or Psilocybin was conducted by doctors R. Andrew Sewell, John H. Halpern and Harrison G. Pope, Jr.[citation needed]<< The citation to Sewell et al is Sewell RA, Halpern JH, Pope HG. Response of cluster headache to psilocybin and LSD. Neurology. 2006;66:1920–1922. These studies are also referred to in what I think is a secondary source -- Christina Sun-Edelstein, MD, Alexander Mauskop, MD “Alternative Headache Treatments: Nutraceuticals, Behavioral and Physical Treatments.” Headache. 2011;51(3):469-483 -- where the authors write (among other things): “Twenty-two of 26 psilocybin users reported that psilocybin aborted attacks while 25 of 48 psilocybin users and 7 of 8 LSD users reported cluster period termination. In addition, 18 of 19 psilocybin users and 4 of 5 LSD users reported remission period extension, meaning that the next expected cluster period was delayed or prevented. These results are interesting . . .  because no other medication has been reported to terminate a cluster period. Furthermore, the drugs were effective at subhallucinogenic doses and effective treatment required very few doses of either drug.” I believe the data here would support (and potentially expand) the second citationless entry (but I don't know how to get back to that original material now to look at it!).  Would these citations be acceptable?  Would returning some version (probably shortened) of the earlier uncited text to this article be acceptable if similar cites could be found?  Maybe I'm asking too much -- maybe I just need to know if the cites would be okay, and then, if they would be, offer my proposed new text.  Again, THANK YOU. (For what it's worth, I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia, but I know I am taxing your time, if not also your patience.) Chfather (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not putting this in the correct place. I'm just learning method and policy for editing wikipedia. The Dr's Sewell, Halpern and Pope study was cited before someone deleted it. When it was added back the citations didn't come back. As a separate question regarding wikipedia policy: Is there a way to have a separate Cluster Headache article that isn't in the medical documentation category, and therefore information that's not peer reviewed could be added (by primary study instead of secondary?). It seems some life saving information could easily be left out that a sufferer could find life saving. Ie, how sufferers use O2 to stop individual attacks quicker (that doctors don't even know, nor would any study ever be created with secondary review as there are many different ways to use O2. Some ways are nearly useless, like just breathing normally.  Many doctors don't even write the scripts correctly for non rebreather mask, LPM etc.  Sorry don't mean to be too wordy.  Just trying to figure out how to get important (but not peer reviewed) information available to those that find Wikipedia in their online search.  Thanks in advance, Jeff  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.201.35 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jeff ... you can sign your entries by putting four tildes ( ~ ) after them. Whether cited to Sewell or not, Sewell is a primary source; we need secondary reviews of it, and on the reading I've done in the last few days (I am not fully caught up yet, still getting the sources and reading through them), we do not have a good review of that study, raising due weight issues.   As to a separate article that is not "medical", it is not the article that matters, it's the content.  Medical and health-related content anywhere on Wikipedia needs to meet medical sourcing guidelines.  I understand your concern, but it is not Wikipedia's role to advocate, rather to state what secondary sources have already stated in reliable sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Sorry Jeff, absolutely not. Wikipedia content (particularly medical content) has to conform to policy with regards to sourcing. This isn't optional, and if one is writing about potentially 'life saving' content, the need for proper sourcing is greater, not less. You should note that the General disclaimer makes it entirely clear that content cannot be relied on - and accordingly, if one is dealing with medical matters of such significance, the only advice Wikipedia should be giving to individuals with CH is that they should consult with a qualified medical professional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Thanks for the tildes info I was just coming back to add to my post when I saw the responses. Appreciate everyone's patience. AndyTheGrump, I definitely understand the reason and need for primary studies in regards to medical information. No one would want any old yahoo putting any cure they found themselves in Wikipedia (I've seen some crazy and useless "cures" people come up with and completely agree with you). On the other hand the only reason there aren't secondary studies on Psylo is because most Dr's don't want to risk their medical license or medical standing by discussing something that's not legal in most places. On the other hand the back door treatment for many with Cluster Headaches (that aren't treatable by "Dr Approved" methods) really works significantly better (per primary study) than anything that's scriptable by the Docs. As an example the first line treatment most doctors prescribe is Verapamil (off label, because yes, it's not approved for CH treatment), but it's only approx 5% effective. I guess it's a catch 22 that psylo and LSD fall into with CH, which is why I'm fishing for alternative ways to provide the information in a Wikipedia approved manner (referencing the few medical studies on it's effectiveness). Another example; cutting on someone's brain is barbaric (but doctor approved) as compared to taking a small dose of a non Dr approved substance that in the majority of patients stops the attacks. Thanks for the feedback, Jeff 75.115.201.35 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize I wasn't signed in until that last post (75.115.201.35 (talk)) is me Thanks again (I'm learning :)) Jeff ThatHurtsMyHead (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Jeff ... have a look at WP:RGW. (You can properly thread your posts by entering increasing numbers of colons before them.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Is this a secondary source? It's an article from Medscape Medical News discussing some psilocybin experiments, and in it a doctor who was not involved in that research (a psychiatry professor at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center) says, "Given that psilocybin and other psychedelics may reduce symptoms of cluster headaches, this is interesting because cluster headaches have been associated with increased hypothalamic cortical blood flow. Perhaps we have new evidence here for the underlying neurobiologic substrate of 2 subjective effects of psilocybin: the improvement of mood, and the alleviation of cluster headaches." (The quote appears on page 2 here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757387)Chfather (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 * That is a news report of a primary study (see WP:MEDRS and also WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT (news).) These are reviews:
 * Vollenweider FX, Kometer M. (2010). "The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: implications for the treatment of mood disorders". Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (9): 642–51. doi:10.1038/nrn2884..
 * Correction: I now have the full text, and Vollenweider is not a review-- it is an opinion piece in a journal of reviews. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Halker R, Vargas B, Dodick DW. (2010). "Cluster headache: diagnosis and treatment". Seminars in Neurology 30 (2): 175–85. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249226..
 * As an example, Halker contains one line, saying basically that there has been a study, hence concerns that even our current text is giving undue weight. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected again, I misspoke, Halker does not mention psilocybin. It seem the only review mentioning psilo is Sun-Edelstein, which is specific to alternative treatments, and outdated for example on oxygen, as discussed below.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find you some substantive secondary sources mentioning psilo and LSD, but they all refer, as Sun-Edelstein does, to the 2006 report by Sewell, Halpern, and Post, and they all say that there is not enough real research evidence, and they often say something defensive about even discussing these taboo substances. Obviously, no doctor in the US is going to prescribe illegal substances, and very, very few are even going to mention them to their patients. The strongest medical case for mentioning hallucinogens in this Wikipedia entry is made (I think) by the 2013 article by Dr. Brian McGeeney in Headache, "Cannabinoids and Hallucinogens for Headache," where he reviews the history of those treatments and, in one section, discusses CH (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/781651_1). I think that there is also some kind of ethical case or even scientific case to be made for mentioning them somewhere, if only because their (unproven) efficacy appears to be far greater than that of any other preventive (as the Sun-Edelstein article says: "These results are interesting . . .  because no other medication has been reported to terminate a cluster period. Furthermore, the drugs were effective at subhallucinogenic doses and effective treatment required very few doses of either drug”). It might be presently unrealistic to conduct medically-persuasive trials of these substances, but that is not the same as completely dismissing their anecdotal efficacy or their status as an "interesting" potential future source of treatment for this terrible condition.  The small open-label clinical trial of BOL-148 (which I mentioned above) is further evidence of potential efficacy -- because BOL-148 is simply non-hallucinogenic LSD. A big dose of LSD, but LSD nonetheless.  I would think that Wikipedia's readers might want to/deserve to know about this interesting potential treatment, even if it is clearly framed as a currently-unavailable, currently-unlawful option. Maybe McGeeney's article will be good enough to earn a mention for hallucinogens, or maybe that plus the other secondary sources I could find would be enough, or maybe, as I say, there's a case for a different kind of mention. I really hope so, and I beg your continuing serious consideration of those possibilities. Chfather (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chfather, thank you for the lead to the article (see my post below, I will get hold of a journal-published copy of it), and please remember WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not news, not a crystal ball, not a publisher of original research, not a support group, and not a whole lot of other things. We publish what reliable secondary sources cover, and give due weight to text according to those sources.  Also, just so you can understand some perspective, please read through MMR vaccine controversy (paying particular attention to the sections on "Media role" and "Disease outbreaks"-- Wikipedia was/is part of that "Media role" in that case).  A couple of editors insisted back in 2006 thru 2007 that Wikipedia had to mention the dangers of vaccinating children that could lead to autism.  Disease outbreaks occurred.  People, and children, died.  We have no obligation to bring forward information that is not based on secondary reliable sources.  There are other internet forums more than happy and willing to pass out unsubstantiated medical content, and most citizens of the internet know where to find that kind of information.  The fact that there is to date one study on psilosybin (and it's not even a controlled study, it was interviews) is not going to change no matter how many secondary sources we can dig up that talk about that one study.  When more studies are done, and when they are reviewed, then we can give more weight to this issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Would moving this content to a section called "Research" be a reasonable compromise? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure yet, I'm waiting for an answer to my query to (who can't get to it right away), and it would help if I had a copy of  that Chfather mentions above (I'm not taking my medical content from Medscape :).   But relative to broad overviews of cluster headache, it initially appears that we are giving undue weight to psilocybin, and that moving it to Research is a possibility. Adding something under treatment based on one study (that wasn't even a study, rather interviews) is problematic, specifically since no serious review of that work has yet surfaced.  Sun-Edelstein and others pretty clearly mention that the results of one study are interesting in terms of what they say about underlying mechanism and potential future advances. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the McGeeney article, assuming Medscape has faithfully reproduced it, there is nothing there. It reviews a lot of history (but current reviews explain the methodological issues that plagued the older studies), and concludes:  "There is no literature support for this regimen."  And it mentions the Sewell 2006 survey, adding nothing of substance.    I've spent hours reading and researching on this topic, and so far, it's just amounted to trying to get water from a rock-- there's nothing there except one survey/interview.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate your efforts and your thoughtfulness, including your note above to me. I'm out of ammo.  If something could be included under "Research," I'd be pleased (and I understand that there's not much "research," either).  Thank you. Chfather (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with Doc James and Chfather, if a mention under a "Research" section is possible would be good. Jeff ThatHurtsMyHead (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

the degree to which psilocybin as a treatment for CH's is marginalized in this article is a travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.140.61 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Depersonalize
We should remove all names of experts and researchers, and their quotes. Suggest only keep name of the person who discovered it (1974, Ekbom according to one source). Lesion ( talk ) 04:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes (unless we are directly quoting someone, in which case we need attribution). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

CH?
Is cluster headache not alternately referred to as CH? Because switching many of the uses of the phrase cluster headache to CH in the article would probably shave 5KB !! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think CH is commonly referred to as "CH," certainly not in the same way that multiple sclerosis is known as MS or tuberculosis as TB, but of course that's because cluster headaches aren't widely enough known to be shorthanded in that way by the general public (even though CH is as common among the US population as MS). I would suppose that as with any initialization, if you stated early in the piece that you were henceforward going to refer to cluster headache as CH, you could probably do that, but as I say, I don't think you'd be employing common usage. This usage, from the current entry, definitely seems wrong to me: "Restlessness (for example, pacing or rocking back and forth), photosensitivity, aversion to light (photophobia) or sensitivity to noise (phonophobia) may occur during a CH." "CH" is the condition; it is not properly used for individual headaches (which are called by people with CH "attacks" or "hits," since "headaches" is a ridiculous term to apply to them (medically proper though it may be)). Chfather (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Emotive words
I noted that this article also uses "sufferer" in a few places. The MEDMOS discourages this, instead we should use more neutral wording like "persons with cluster headache". Lesion ( talk ) 01:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I was out all day, so got no Wiki work done, but I did have a chance to read through the article from my cell phone, and the prose is atrocious throughout. I will engage again tomorrow or Sunday, read both Cochrane reviews, and before anything else, work on some of the worst parts of the prose.  Unless someone tells me not to, I will switch a lot of the repetitive "cluster headaches" to "CH".  Still have to find time to deal with all the primary sources.  Does anyone have a copy of the full text of the journal article referenced above by ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 * >>The full text is here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738530 Chfather (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Done for now-- ready for another pass from or  or. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 * I would like to do a general editing pass--not to mess with content but small edits in quite a few places that I think will add clarity. I guess I could just do that (?) . . . but is there a way to somehow do it offline so that you-all don't think I'm trying to willfully impose myself on the published page?  For whatever it's worth, I'm a writer/editor by profession.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfather (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 * There has certainly been a problem in here with prose redundancy and unencylopedic, over-emotive language. Separately, the clarification tag I put on nerve stimulators was removed.  We do not have an article for that, so we need to either create one, find one, or tell our readers what they are.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated prevention and treatment sections
I think that was the most dangerous stuff. We have inline tags so have removed the banners from the lead. Feel free to replace them if you feel strongly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Verapamil
Under "Prevention," the entry now states: >>The recommended first-line preventative therapy is verapamil, calcium channel blocker.[3][35] Despite its usefulness, only four percent of people with cluster headache report verapamil use.[5]<< I suppose that first sentence is supposed to say "a calcium channel blocker," but my concern is with the second sentence, which is using a 2005 report that was surely compiled in 2004 or earlier -- and although the specific 4% assertion is not cited in that report, it appears to come from even older sources, to judge from the nearby citations. The entry suggests that the 4 percent statistic is current, and there's no justification for that. I don't have more recent information, but the wording is nevertheless misleading. From anecdotal experience, I'd bet that verap is prescribed to at least 40-50 percent of diagnosed people in the US; how many continue using it, I wouldn't know.Chfather (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Have changed the wording to past tense as 2005 is a little old and I would imagine things are better now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have to wonder what value that past-tense sentence adds, but I'm just a kibbitzer. What's more shocking, and more current, is the 2010 study that showed only about 25 percent of people with CH using inhaled oxygen as an abortive, even though it's highly effective and virtually side-effect free. (I could provide a link to this study, but I don't have it in a secondary source.) The reasons why oxygen use is so low are many -- docs who fail to prescribe it; docs who prescribe it wrong (e.g., nasal cannula instead of non-rebreather mask); people who aren't told how to get a prescription filled; people who don't get results from a faulty system or who do not use it properly and conclude that O2 doesn't work for them. I mention these reasons because it seems to me that deciding whether to include the 25 percent statistic might depend on who the audience is perceived to be. For many people, oxygen is the lifesaver of CH treatments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfather (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We have very good recent reviews on treatment, and we should be using them. I am not able to find that any of them give the weight to psilocybin that we give. is a comprehensive, 2010 review, and we have a Cochrane review on oxygen therapy,, which we are under-using. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 * On oxygen, Sun-Edelstein (2011 review, ) says:
 * I believe that's in line with the Cochrane review, but would need to double-check. It seems our article is somewhat overstating now the usefulness of oxygen.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is still a primary treatment even though the evidence is poor because it is so safe. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Sun-Edelstein quote above here from SandyG begins by referencing the Cochrane Review from 2008: "A recent Cochrane Review171 assessing the safety and effectiveness of HBOT and normobaric oxygen therapy (NBOT) . . ." That's the only source for what's in the quote regarding NBOT. The cited Cochrane Review is from 2008; the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of oxygen published in JAMA (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185035) was in 2009. HBOT is a completely different topic. So is the efficacy of NBOT or HBOT as a preventive. I realize the JAMA study is primary, and I guess I could look for secondary ones citing it . . . but I am telling you, anecdotally but definitively, that you are not presently overstating the efficacy of NBOT as an abortive.  As I say, if you need me to find secondary evidence for my assertion, I will. Chfather (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out-- so it seems we're good on this issue. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Parts of this recent review should be cited in multiple areas in this wiki             RossChapman311 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
[]

63 people interviewed. The percentage of patients with pituitary abnormalities is interesting. Plus, whoever wrote this CH wiki needs to find sources for the hypothalamus/timetable point. This article should do it. If you wanna get the primary source, this neurologist from sweden has got it all written out for you, since I cant do it myself. So use it if ya wanna. It should be referenced. It makes the most logical sense that the reason the headaches occur in the first place would be associated with the hypothalamus. Ive had them for 4 years, every may for a month. 1 to 3 a day usually. Sometimes i get a day off, but im waiting for it to kick in again the whole time i dont have the CH. Needless to say, Im not looking forward to a month from now. RossChapman311 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Will read this review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We state
"Valproate, sumatriptan and oxygen are not recommended as preventative measures" ref states "Based on current evidence, one review suggested that sumatriptan, valproate (Depacon), misoprostol (Cytotec), supplemental oxygen, cimetidine (Tagamet), and chlorpheniramine should not be used for preventive treatment"  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Causes
Some news regarding causes: - Open access. --Friedrich K. (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A primary source. We should try to use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Content
"In one study, daily capsaicin was applied in the nose achieved not only desensitization over the next few days to the local pain but also CH relief: "Those who rubbed capsaicin in the nostril on the opposite side of the head had nothing happen. They started out having around 40 attacks a day, and a month later the headaches were still going strong. Those that rubbed capsaicin in the nostril on the side of the head where the headaches were, cut the average number of attacks in half, and in fact half the patients were cured–the cluster headaches were gone completely. All in all, 80% responded, which is at least equal to if not better than all the current therapies out there," as reported by Michael Greger, M.D. and referencing a 2009 peer reviewed study. "

This ref does not mention capsaicin? And this ref is not good enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for letting me know; in fact I put the wrong reference for the primary. As for the summary, it's better to have Dr. Greger, M.D. summarize than one of us on wikipedia which de facto is what otherwise happens anyway right? In fact there isn't a more reliable person than him to provide the summary; he's the only expert I know of, who personally reads every singles English language peer reviewed research paper on nutrition in the world every year. I.e. he's a national or international expert, a fortiori, a reliable source, for summarizing the article (again, de facto alternative is one of us summarizing anyway) but should his summary be the second reference listed rather than the first? I'm fine with that. Thanks for letting me know! So what's the right reference then?

 * It's here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7708405 Which indeed Dr. Greger does cite in both the print (http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/04/10/natural-treatment-for-cluster-headaches/) and video (somewhere on his website; youtube copy is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSeYYXlH1MQ and as you can see at 3:00 minutes into the video he puts a screenshot of the article too, he literally shows the full reference in almost every single video so dedicated is he to referencing, as well as in the print summary on NurtitionFacts.org. NF is a 501(c)(3) etc But yes I messed up which reference to cite, thanks for catching it!

Pain. 1994 Dec;59(3):321-5. Preventative effect of repeated nasal applications of capsaicin in cluster headache. Fusco BM1, Marabini S, Maggi CA, Fiore G, Geppetti P. Author information Abstract

Preliminary studies have shown that repeated nasal applications of capsaicin prevented the occurrence of cluster headache attacks. The present study was designed to verify the difference in efficacy of treatment with nasal capsaicin, depending on the side of application. Fifty-two patients affected by episodic form were divided into 2 groups, one receiving the treatment on the same side where the attacks occurred (ipsilateral side), the other on the controlateral side. Eighteen patients with a chronic form alternately received both ipsilateral and controlateral treatments. Seventy percent of the episodic patients, treated on the ipsilateral side, showed a marked amelioration whereas no improvement was noted in the patients treated on the contralateral side. The efficacy of ipsilateral treatment was emphasized by the results obtained in chronic patients. However, in these patients, the maximum period of amelioration lasted no more than 40 days. The difference between the effects of the 2 treatments (contralateral and ipsilateral) was statistically significant in both episodic and chronic sufferers. The efficacy of repeated nasal applications of capsaicin in cluster headache is congruent with previous reports on the therapeutic effect of capsaicin in other pain syndromes (post-herpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, trigeminal neuralgia) and supports the use of the drug to produce a selective analgesia. PMID:   7708405 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
 * We can list this one first. The quote and summary from experts Michael Greger, M.D., FACLM is invaluable, but can be listed second if you prefer. The other reference was background research as to why the mechanism might work; one can include it or not. I hope this doesn't apply here but I must add that, while I abhor pseudoscience a la reiki etc as much or more than anyone else, there is a strong POV on much of wikipedia on health treatment in the other "big pharma or surgery only" extremist view. Dr. Greger can take it (equally powerful forces were arrayed against Oprah Winfrey in her "meat defamation trial" - Greger was an expert witness for the defence - the side that won, in ranch country, where Meat and Dairy Inc are almost as powerful as Big Pharma is nationally) and prevail, but my time is limited here, and these comments are directed not at you personally but pre-emprively for this thread. I think you'll enjoy the 4 minute video summary which has screenshots of not just the abstract but a good half dozen screenshots including the graphs from the article's data and more.

Btw, this isn't place for discussion but sufferers --I am not one-- may be very interested in personal experiences e.g. Debra-Elaine Simpson's, Junior Hernandez's, TheHusky's at the top fo the comments of that youtube link. The pain level sounds just awful and my heart goes out to sufferers Harelx (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Doc James, if you're ever looking to (also) volunteer at another site, have you seen wikidoc.org? is their about page, started by a Harvard physician..starts off with wikipedia but has medical professionals like you on staff. I really like wikipedia (notwithstanding above) but that seems like a nice sister project, as far as health and medicine. Harelx (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I write here on Wikipedia because this is where more people come to read. About half of our core community of editors of medical content are health care providers here.
 * This is a primary source from 1994. We are looking for secondary sources like review articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Found a review here which found the benefit unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cluster headache. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.efns.org/files/guideline_49.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Introductory section should be revised
All of this should be edited or removed:

"The cause is unknown.[2] Risk factors include a history of exposure to tobacco smoke and a family history of the condition.[2] Things that may trigger attacks include alcohol, and nitroglycerin.[2] They are a primary headache disorder of the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias type.[2] Diagnosis is based on symptom.[2]

Recommended management include lifestyle changes such as avoiding potential triggers.[2]"

The text cited is from a 2013 source, and there have since been publications since then describing causes. Also, starting a paragraph about "recommended management" about "lifestyle changes" is irresponsible, since cluster headaches can very rarely be avoided, even if triggers are avoided (need to cite source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oholleran (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Simple lifestyle changes if supported should be listed first. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with conjunctival injection and tearing
Appears to be a very rare differential. As such IMO it is fine to simple go in the body of the article under differential and is not needed in the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per here a total of 50 cases have been described. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26092511 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than listing all of them in the infobox what do you think about linking to the group Trigeminal autonomic cephalgia? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine for the infobox but the body should list the actual SUNCT syndrome entity. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 * SUNCT syndrome JFW | T@lk  15:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TylerDurden8823 agree and the body already explicitly lists it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree, that sounds good. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lancet Neurol,
10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30405-2 JFW | T@lk  15:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Immediate improvement of cluster headaches after sexual activity
The Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry has an interesting piece about how becoming sexually aroused can make a cluster headache go away. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077391/. Is this the only medical condition that can be "treated" by becoming sexually aroused? And does this raise ethical questions about whether health services could or should provide the means of becoming sexually aroused as a form of treatment? Matt Stan (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I need to sign up to some research project & volunteer my own findings. I've suffered from both migraine & cluster-headaches since childhood, & have a variety of coping strategies for each. lying still in a dark room isn't one of them. but I have found, that against the onset of a cluster-headache, several things help. coffee, marijuana, sugar, coca-cola, sex & bowel-evacuation. some combination of these activities generally helps. the pain of these headaches is not overstated here- I have described my fear to colleagues that one day, one of these headaches will strike while I am in the neighbourhood of my electric drill; trepanation &/or permanent sleep being the objective.

duncanrmi (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Update treatments to include electrical stimulation devices
The FDA recently approved an electrical stimulation device (marketed under the name "gammaCore)" to be used to treat cluster headaches. I don't have the expertise to update the "Management" section, but I recommend that someone with the requisite knowledge do so. [A 2018 FDA memo may be a good place to start.] I am aware that other similar devices may become FDA-approved for cluster headache treatment within the next few years, so a new subsection on "electric stimulation devices" may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbb01 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 * We should look for better sources. Was approved as simple "substantially equivalent" to something else. So the device is not unique.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree with respect to better sources. I also agree that the device is not unique. That is why I believe there could be a new, short section within the "Management" on electrical stimulation devices. No need to mention any particular device. I did find a mention of research on this treatment in the subsection on "Surgery," but (a) this is not a surgical procedure (other treatments in that section do require surgery), and (b) the only study cited in the section refers to TENS devices, which may be appropriate but I imagine more recent studies should be included as references as well. Drbb01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Often" suicide?
Ref does not make this claim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this source primary or secondary ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1738593/ it is used in the bodyWalidou47 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is primary. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sections for one sentence
I do not think we need a separate section for one sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral do not agree or disagree thanks.Walidou47 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Research direction vs researched conclusions...
The 2006 study referenced in 'research direction' is not really suitable for this section as it's misleading. The study concluded in 2006 and showed significant results in both the management and prevention of CH. I'd therefore like to remove this particular sentence and place the findings of this study under the 'other' sections within prevention and management. Is there any objection to this suggestion? JulianParge (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 * I had an answer to this as part of a contribution I tried to make under psilocybin for the same discussion. I won't amend anything. JulianParge (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Other treatments
What would be the best way to include ongoing research into what seems to be a remarkably effective treatment that has failed to gain much attention yet.

https://n.neurology.org/content/82/10_Supplement/P1.256

There is version/variant of the above protocol in a document "Suggested Headache Preventative Treatment Protocol" .... "prepared for neurologists, pain specialists, and primary care physicians who routinely treat patients with headaches."

https://www.tacsweb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/suggested-ch-preventative-treatment-protocol-for-neurologists_07-07-17-1.pdf

Idyllic press (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking
Does Wikipedia even allow the content that's written here? All the statements have citations, but it sounds like it was written by a tobacco company. 184.176.138.209 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cluster headache


text:
Hungary at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Hungary competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. 178 competitors, 109 men and 69 women, took part in 137 events in 23 sports.

Men's Competition
Men's 400 m
 * Zsolt Szeglet
 * Round 1 – 46.19 (→ did not advance)

Men's 800 m
 * Balázs Korányi
 * Round 1 – 01:46.21
 * Semifinal – 01:47.35 (→ did not advance)

Men's 110 m Hurdles
 * Balázs Kovács
 * Round 1 – 13.83
 * Round 2 – 13.78 (→ did not advance)

 * Levente Csillag
 * Round 1 – 13.66
 * Round 2 – 13.75 (→ did not advance)

Men's 400 m Hurdles
 * Tibor Bedi
 * Round 1 – 51.54 (→ did not advance)

Men's 4 × 100 m
 * Laszlo Babaly, Miklós Gyulai, Viktor Kovács, and Géza Pauer
 * Round 1 – 39.52 (did not advance)

Men's 4 × 400 m
 * Tibor Bedi, Zétény Dombi, Attila Kilvinger, and Zsolt Szeglet
 * Round 1 – 03:06.50 (→ did not advance)

Men's Shot Put
 * Szilard Kiss
 * Qualifying – 18.95 (→ did not advance)

Men's Discus
 * Róbert Fazekas
 * Qualifying – 61.76 (→ did not advance)

 * Gábor Máté
 * Qualifying – 60.86 (→ did not advance)

 * Zoltán Kővágó
 * Qualifying – NM (→ did not advance)

Men's Hammer Throw
 * Tibor Gécsek
 * Qualifying – 77.33
 * Final – 77.70 (→ 7th place)

 * Zsolt Németh
 * Qualifying – 73.95 (→ did not advance)

 * Adrián Annus
 * Qualifying – 75.41 (→ did not advance)

Men's Triple Jump
 * Zsolt Czingler
 * Qualifying – 16.52 (→ did not advance)

Men's 20 km Walk
 * Sándor Urbanik
 * Final – 0:01:26 (→ 29th place)

 * Gyula Dudás
 * Final – 1:28:34 (→ 37th place)

Men's 50 km Walk
 * Gyula Dudás
 * Final – 4:17:55 (→ 37th place)

 * Zoltán Czukor
 * Final – DSQ

Men's Decathlon
 * Attila Zsivoczky
 * 100 m – 11.10
 * Long jump – 7.00
 * Shot put – 14.96
 * High jump – 2.06
 * 400 m – 48.61
 * 100 m Hurdles – 15.27
 * Discus throw – 47.43
 * Pole vault – 4.80
 * Javelin throw – 65.87
 * 1,500 m – 04:23.37

 * Points – 8277.00 (→ 8th place)
 * Zsolt Kürtösi
 * 100 m – 11.00
 * Long jump – 7.19
 * Shot put – 15.13
 * High jump – 2.00
 * 400 m – 48.81
 * 100 m Hurdles – 14.15
 * Discus throw – 46.62
 * Pole vault – 4.80
 * Javelin throw – 57.16
 * 1,500 m – 04:43.39

 * Points – 8149.00 (→ 11th place)

Women's Competition
Women's 400 m
 * Barbara Petráhn
 * Round 1 – 52.86
 * Round 2 – 52.72 (→ did not advance)

Women's 10,000 m
 * Anikó Kálovics
 * Round 1 – 33:20.40 (→ did not advance)

Women's Javelin Throw
 * Nikolett Szabó
 * Qualifying – 58.86 (→ did not advance)

Women's Hammer Throw
 * Katalin Divós
 * Qualifying – 62.74 (→ did not advance)

Women's Long Jump
 * Tünde Vaszi
 * Qualifying – 6.70
 * Final – 6.59 (→ 8th place)

 * Zita Ajkler
 * Qualifying – 6.36 (→ did not advance)

Women's High Jump
 * Dóra Győrffy
 * Qualifying – 1.89 (→ did not advance)

Women's Pole Vault
 * Zsuzsanna Szabó
 * Qualifying – NM (→ did not advance)

 * Katalin Donath
 * Qualifying – NM (→ did not advance)

Women's 20 km Walk
 * Mária Urbanik
 * Final – 1:34:45 (→ 18th place)

 * Anikó Szebenszky
 * Final – 1:36:46 (→ 29th place)

Women's Marathon
 * Judit Földing-Nagy
 * Final – 2:30:54 (→ 17th place)

Women's Heptathlon
 * Rita Ináncsi
 * 100 m Hurdles – 15.11
 * High jump – 1.69
 * Shot put – DNS
 * 200 m – DNS

Boxing
Men's Light Flyweight (– 48 kg)
 * Pál Lakatos
 * Round 1 – Bye
 * Round 2 – Lost to Un Chol Kim of DPR of Korea (→ did not advance)

Men's Light Middleweight (– 71 kg)
 * Károly Balzsay
 * Round 1 – Bye
 * Round 2 – Lost to Pornchai Thongburan of Thailand (→ did not advance)

Men's Middleweight (– 75 kg)
 * Zsolt Erdei
 * Round 1 – Bye
 * Round 2 – Defeated Vladislav Vizilter of Kyrgyzstan
 * Quarterfinal – Defeated Oleksandr Zubrihin of Ukraine
 * Semifinal – Lost to Gaidarbek Gaidarbekov of Russia → [[Image:Med 3.png]]Bronze Medal

Men's Competition
Men's Kayak Singles 500 m
 * Ákos Vereckei
 * Qualifying heat – 01:42.089
 * Semifinal – 01:39.574
 * Final – 02:00.145 (→ 4th place)

Men's Kayak Singles 1000 m
 * Roland Kökény
 * Qualifying heat – 03:38.066
 * Semifinal – 03:39.455 (→ did not advance)

Men's Kayak Doubles 500 m
 * Zoltan Kammerer and Botond Storcz
 * Qualifying heat – 01:31.144
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 01:47.055 (→ [[Image:Med 1.png]] Gold Medal)

Men's Kayak Doubles 1,000 m
 * Krisztián Bártfai and Krisztian Vereb
 * Qualifying heat – 03:13.677
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 03:16.357 (→ [[Image:Med 3.png]] Bronze Medal)

Men's Kayak Fours 1,000 m
 * Gabor Horvath, Zoltan Kammerer, Botond Storcz, and Ákos Vereckei
 * Qualifying heat – 02:58.096
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 02:55.188 (→ [[Image:Med 1.png]] Gold Medal)

Men's Canoe Singles 500 m
 * Gyorgy Kolonics
 * Qualifying heat – 01:51.492
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 02:24.813 (→ [[Image:Med 1.png]] Gold Medal)

Men's Canoe Singles 1000 m
 * György Zala
 * Qualifying heat – 04:00.754
 * Semifinal – 04:03.226 (→ did not advance)

Men's Canoe Doubles 500 m
 * Imre Pulai and Ferenc Novák
 * Qualifying heat – 01:42.816
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 01:51.284 (→ [[Image:Med 1.png]] Gold Medal)

Men's Canoe Doubles 1,000 m
 * Imre Pulai and Ferenc Novák
 * Qualifying heat – 03:38.492
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 03:43.103 (→ 5th place)

Women's Competition
Women's Kayak Singles 500 m
 * Rita Kőbán
 * Qualifying heat – 01:50.777
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 02:19.668 (→ 6th place)

Women's Kayak Doubles 500 m
 * Katalin Kovács, Szilvia Szabó
 * Qualifying heat – 01:42.298
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 01:58.580 (→ [[Image:Med 2.png]] Silver Medal)

Women's Kayak Fours 500 m
 * Rita Kőbán, Katalin Kovács, Szilvia Szabó, Erzsébet Viski
 * Qualifying heat – 01:33.312
 * Semifinal – Bye
 * Final – 01:34.946 (→ [[Image:Med 2.png]] Silver Medal)

Track Cycling
Women's Sprint
 * Szilvia Noemi Szabolcsi
 * Qualifying – 11.545
 * 1/8 Finals – Lost to Iryna Yanovych of Ukraine
 * 1/8 Finals Repechage – Heat 1; 1st place
 * Quarterfinal – Lost to Oxana Grichina of Russia
 * Finals 5-8 – (→ 5th place)

Women's 500 m Time Trial
 * Szilvia Noemi Szabolcsi
 * Final – 35.778 (→ 12th place)

Diving
Men's 3 Metre Springboard
 * Imre Lengyel
 * Preliminary – 382.98
 * Semi-final – 222.60 – 605.58
 * Final – 390.87 – 613.47 (→ 11th place)

Men's 10 Metre Platform
 * Andras Hajinal
 * Preliminary – 316.14 (→ did not advance, 34th place)

Women's 3 Metre Springboard
 * Orsolya Pintér
 * Preliminary – 239.64 (→ did not advance, 25th place)

Fencing
Thirteen fencers, seven men and six women, represented Hungary in 2000.

 * Men's foil
 * Márk Marsi

 * Men's épée
 * Attila Fekete
 * Iván Kovács

 * Men's team épée
 * Attila Fekete, Márk Marsi, Iván Kovács

 * Men's sabre
 * Domonkos Ferjancsik
 * Csaba Köves
 * Zsolt Nemcsik

 * Men's team sabre
 * Zsolt Nemcsik, Csaba Köves, Domonkos Ferjancsik, Péter Takács

 * Women's foil
 * Aida Mohamed
 * Edina Knapek
 * Gabriella Lantos

 * Women's team foil
 * Edina Knapek, Gabriella Lantos, Aida Mohamed

 * Women's épée
 * Tímea Nagy
 * Ildikó Nébaldné Mincza
 * Gyöngyi Szalay-Horváth

 * Women's team épée
 * Tímea Nagy, Ildikó Nébaldné Mincza, Gyöngyi Szalay-Horváth

Modern pentathlon
Men's Competition
 * Gábor Balogh – 5353pts (→ [[Image:Med 2.png]] Silver Medal)
 * Péter Sárfalvi – 4971pts (→ 17th place)

Women's Competition
 * Zsuzsanna Vörös – 4866 pts (→ 15th place)
 * Nóra Simóka – 3042pts (→ 23rd place)

Sailing
Five men and one woman competed for Hungary in the Sailing venue at the 2000 Olympics. The best finish was 15th.

Men's Mistral
 * Aron Gadorfalvi
 * Race 1 – (24)
 * Race 2 – 19
 * Race 3 – 19
 * Race 4 – 23
 * Race 5 – 21
 * Race 6 – 23
 * Race 7 – 21
 * Race 8 – 17
 * Race 9 – 14
 * Race 10 – (37) OCS
 * Race 11 – 20
 * Final – 177 (24thplace)

Men's Single Handed Dinghy (Finn)
 * Balázs Hajdú
 * Race 1 – (26) DSQ
 * Race 2 – 6
 * Race 3 – 16
 * Race 4 – 16
 * Race 5 – 3
 * Race 6 – 5
 * Race 7 – (26) DNF
 * Race 8 – 8
 * Race 9 – 22
 * Race 10 – 10
 * Race 11 – 16
 * Final – 102 (15th place)

Men's Double Handed Dinghy (470)
 * Marcell S. Goszleth and Adam C. Szorenyi
 * Race 1 – (30) OCS
 * Race 2 – 20
 * Race 3 – 19
 * Race 4 – 18
 * Race 5 – 25
 * Race 6 – 24
 * Race 7 – 26
 * Race 8 – 17
 * Race 9 – (29)
 * Race 10 – 28
 * Race 11 – 27
 * Final – 204 (29th place)

Men's Laser
 * Tamas Eszes
 * Race 1 – 5
 * Race 2 – (26)
 * Race 3 – 9
 * Race 4 – 13
 * Race 5 – (44) DSQ
 * Race 6 – 14
 * Race 7 – 16
 * Race 8 – 26
 * Race 9 – 5
 * Race 10 – 26
 * Race 11 – 13
 * Final – 127 (18thplace)

Women's Mistral
 * Luca Gadorfalvi
 * Race 1 – 23
 * Race 2 – (26)
 * Race 3 – 24
 * Race 4 – 24
 * Race 5 – (28)
 * Race 6 – 21
 * Race 7 – 25
 * Race 8 – 21
 * Race 9 – 15
 * Race 10 – 23
 * Race 11 – 25
 * Final – 201 (25th place)

Swimming
Men's 50 m Freestyle
 * Attila Zubor
 * Preliminary heat – 23.03 (→ did not advance)

Men's 100 m Freestyle
 * Attila Zubor
 * Preliminary heat – 49.79
 * Semi-final – 49.58 (→ did not advance)

Men's 200 m Freestyle
 * Béla Szabados
 * Preliminary heat – 1:50.10
 * Semi-final – 1:49.36 (→ did not advance)

 * Attila Zubor
 * Preliminary heat – 1:50.11
 * Semi-final – 1:49.87 (→ did not advance)

Men's 400 m Freestyle
 * Zoltán Szilágyi
 * Preliminary heat – 03:58.94 (→ did not advance)

Men's 100 m Butterfly
 * Zsolt Gáspár
 * Preliminary heat – 53.29
 * Semi-final – 53.45 (→ did not advance)

Men's 200 m Butterfly
 * Viktor Bodrogi
 * Preliminary heat – 02:00.75 (→ did not advance)

Men's 100 m Breaststroke
 * Károly Güttler
 * Preliminary heat – 01:01.66
 * Semi-final – 01:01.83 (→ did not advance)

Men's 200 m Breaststroke
 * Norbert Rózsa
 * Preliminary heat – 02:15.27
 * Semi-final – 02:14.67 (→ did not advance)

Men's 100 m Backstroke
 * Péter Horváth
 * Preliminary heat – 55.81
 * Semi-final – 55.65 (→ did not advance)

Men's 200 m Backstroke
 * Viktor Bodrogi
 * Preliminary heat – DSQ (→ did not advance)

Men's 200 m Individual Medley
 * Attila Czene
 * Preliminary heat – 02:02.66
 * Semi-final – 02:01.56
 * Final – 02:01.16 (→ 4th place)

 * István Batházi
 * Preliminary heat – 02:03.63 (→ did not advance)

Men's 400 m Individual Medley
 * István Batházi
 * Preliminary heat – 04:18.85 (→ did not advance)

Men's 4 × 200 m Freestyle
 * Attila Czene, Zsolt Gáspár, Jacint Simon, and Béla Szabados
 * Preliminary heat – 07:24.48 (→ did not advance)

Men's 4 × 100 m Medley
 * Péter Horváth, Károly Güttler, Zsolt Gáspár, and Attila Zubor
 * Preliminary heat – 03:38.58
 * Final – 03:39.09 (→ 5th place)

Women's 100 m Freestyle
 * Gyongyver Lakos
 * Preliminary heat – 57.71 (→ did not advance)

Women's 400 m Freestyle
 * Éva Risztov
 * Preliminary heat – 04:18.48 (→ did not advance)

Women's 800 m Freestyle
 * Éva Risztov
 * Preliminary heat – 08:43.07 (→ did not advance)

Women's 100 m Butterfly
 * Orsolya Ferenczy
 * Preliminary heat – 01:01.15 (→ did not advance)

Women's 200 m Butterfly
 * Éva Risztov
 * Preliminary heat – 02:11.32 (→ did not advance)

Women's 100 m Breaststroke
 * Ágnes Kovács
 * Preliminary heat – 01:08.50
 * Semi-final – 01:07.79
 * Final – 01:08.09 (→ 5th place)

Women's 200 m Breaststroke
 * Ágnes Kovács
 * Preliminary heat – 02:24.92
 * Semi-final – 02:24.03 – Olympic Record
 * Final – 02:24.35 (→ [[Image:Med 1.png]] Gold Medal)

Women's 100 m Backstroke
 * Annamaria Kiss
 * Preliminary heat – 01:06.12 (→ did not advance)

Women's 200 m Backstroke
 * Annamaria Kiss
 * Preliminary heat – 02:20.40 (→ did not advance)

Women's 4 × 100 m Medley
 * Orsolya Ferenczy, Annamaria Kiss, Ágnes Kovács, and Gyongyver Lakos
 * Preliminary heat – 04:11.11 (→ did not advance)

Synchronized swimming
Duet
 * Zsuzsanna Hamori, Petra Marschalko
 * Technical routine – 28.957 Did not compete in free routine

Tennis
Men's Singles Competition
 * Attila Sávolt
 * First round – Lost to Paradorn Srichaphan (THA), 2-6 6-4 5–7

Alternates

Daniel Somogyi Gergely Kisgyorgy

Women's Singles Competition
 * Rita Kuti-Kis
 * First round – Lost to Amanda Coetzer (RSA), 1-6 1–6

 * Petra Mandula
 * First round – Lost to Conchita Martínez (ESP), 1-6 0–6

 * Katalin Marosi
 * First round – Lost to Monica Seles (USA), 0-6 1–6

Triathlon
Men's Individual Competition
 * Csaba Kuttor – 1:51:05.74 (→ 30th place)

Women's Individual Competition
 * Nora Edocseny – 2:05:20.03 (→ 19th place)
 * Erika Molnar – 2:05:39.50 (→ 23rd place)
 * Aniko Gog – 2:14:50.55 (→ 39th place)

Men's team competition

 * Preliminary round

 * 3-2-0

 * Quarterfinals
 * Defeated Italy (8-5)

 * Semifinals
 * Defeated Yugoslavia (8-7)

 * Final
 * Defeated Russia (13-6)

 * Team roster
 * Tibor Benedek
 * Péter Biros
 * Rajmund Fodor
 * Tamás Kásás
 * Gergely Kiss
 * Zoltán Kósz
 * Tamás Märcz
 * Tamás Molnár
 * Barnabás Steinmetz
 * Zoltán Szécsi
 * Bulcsú Székely
 * Attila Vári
 * Zsolt Varga

 * Head coach: Dénes Kemény

Weightlifting
Men Women

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hungary at the 2000 Summer Olympics


text: Category:Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages


text:
Kaoru

Kaoru is a Japanese given name for males and females.

Name Meanings
The name's meaning varies depending on its written form:
 * 薫/郁 — "fragrance", common for both males and females
 * 馨/香 — "fragrance", more common for females
 * かおる —　purely phonetic form in hiragana; no inherent meaning
 * かをる — same as above, using を as an archaic substitute for お
 * カオル — phonetic form in katakana

As a distinctly unisex name, its usage in popular culture has risen in recent years to give the named character an air of androgyny. Such characters commonly have overt androgynous qualities as well.

A similar name, in terms of both pronunciation and meaning, is Kaori. It is used exclusively for females.

People

 * Kaoru 薫 (m) (one of the guitarists of Dir En Grey)
 * Kaoru Abe 阿部薫 (m) (free Jazz saxophonist)
 * Kaoru Adachi (安達 かおる), Japanese film director, producer and editor
 * Kaoru Akimoto(秋元薫) Born: 1964, Japanese singer-songwriter.She was also a vocalist for the band SHAMBARA. She was discovered while participating as a backup vocalist for Matsutoya Yumi's live tour in 1983.
 * Kaoru Fujino かほる (voice actor)
 * Kaoru Fukuda (福田 薫), Japanese speed skater
 * Kaoru Hasuike 薫 (m) (academic, writer, translator, and Japanese national once abducted by North Korea)
 * Kaoru Hatoyama (1888–1982), Japanese educator
 * Kaoru Ide, Japanese architect
 * Kaoru Ikeya 薫 (m) (astronomer)
 * Kaoru Inoue 馨 (m) (statesman)
 * Kaoru Ishibashi (m) (musician, Kishi Bashi)
 * Kaoru Ishikawa (m) (business theorist, developer of the Ishikawa diagram)
 * Kaoru Kakizakai (柿堺 香), Japanese musician
 * Kaoru Kakudo (1947–2004), Japanese musician and violinist
 * Kaoru Kurimoto (1953–2009), Japanese novelist
 * Kaoru Kobayashi (m) (actor)
 * Kaoru Maeda 薫 (f) (professional wrestler)
 * Kaoru Matsuo (松尾 薫), Japanese sport shooter
 * Kaoru Mitoma (m), Japanese footballer
 * Kaoru Mori 薫 (f) (manga author)
 * Kaoru Onimaru (鬼丸 かおる), Japanese lawyer and judge
 * Kaoru Otsuki (1888–1970), Japanese politician
 * Kaoru Shimamura (嶋村 カオル), Japanese voice actress
 * Kaoru Sugayama かおる (f) (volleyball player)
 * Kaoru Tada (1960–1999), Japanese manga artist
 * Kaoru Takamura (髙村 薫), Japanese novelist and essayist
 * Kaoru Takayama (高山 薫), Japanese footballer
 * Kaoru Uno 薫 (m) (mixed martial artist)
 * Kaoru Usui 薫 (m) (photographer)
 * Kaoru Kimura (f) Japanese astronomy educator; President, International Planetarium Society 2021-22
 * Kaoru Wada 薫 (m) (composer)
 * Kaoru Wakabayashi (若林 薫), Japanese basketball player
 * Kaoru Yachigusa (1931–2019), Japanese actress
 * Kaoru Yosano 馨 (m) (politician)

Fictional characters
All names (except for Fujiwara no Kaoru and Kamiya Kaoru) are in western naming order.
 * Kaoru (f) - Rilakkuma and Kaoru
 * Kaoru Toki 時 カオル (f) - Seitokai Yakuindomo
 * Kaoru (m) - Uninhabited Planet Survive!
 * Kaoru Akashi (f) - Zettai Karen Children
 * Kaoru (f) - Daughter of Smoke and Bone
 * Kaoru Amane 薫 (f) - Taiyou no Uta
 * Kaoru Asahina (m) - Junjo Romantica
 * Fujiwara no Kaoru a.k.a. Murasaki Shikibu (m) - Akane-sasu Sekai de Kimi to Utau
 * Kaoru Genji 薫 (m) - Tale of Genji
 * Kaoru Hanabishi (m) - Ai Yori Aoshi
 * Kaoru Hitachiin 馨 (m) - Ouran High School Host Club
 * Kaoru Hondobou (m) - Gyakuten Saiban 3
 * Kaoru Ichijo 薫 (m) - Kamen Rider Kuuga
 * Kaoru Kaidoh 薫 (m) - Prince of Tennis
 * Kaoru Kameyama (m) - Aibō
 * Kaoru Kamiya 薫 (f) - Rurouni Kenshin
 * Kaoru Kiryuu 薫 (f) - Futari wa Pretty Cure Splash Star
 * Kaoru Kiryūin (m) - Moero! Nekketsu Rhythm Damashii Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan 2
 * Kaoru Kishimoto 薫 (m) - Hikaru no Go
 * Kaoru Koganei 薰 (m) - Flame of Recca
 * Kaoru Kondo (f) - Saido Kā ni Inu
 * Kaoru Kurusu (m) - Uta no Prince-Sama
 * Kaoru Maki カオル (f) - Puella Magi Kazumi Magica
 * Kaoru Matoba 薫 (m) - Area no Kishi
 * Kaoru Matsubara 松原かおる (f) - Demashita! Powerpuff Girls Z
 * Kaoru Matsutake 香 (m) - Mirmo!
 * Kaoru Mitarai (f) - Pita Ten
 * Kaworu Nagisa 渚カヲル (m) - Neon Genesis Evangelion
 * Kaoru Ōba (Wendy Oldbag) (f) - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
 * Kaoru Orihara (also known as "Kaoru-no-kimi") (f) - Oniisama e...
 * Kaoru Saionji (m) - Gakuen Heaven
 * Kaoru Saegusa (f) -Tokusou Robo Janperson
 * Kaoru Sakurazuka (m) - Yin-Yang! X-Change Alternative
 * Kaoru Sasakura (f) -Marumo no Okite
 * Kaoru Sayama (f) -Yakuza 2 & Yakuza 3
 * Kaoru Seo (m) - Sekirei
 * Kaoru Shiba (f) - Samurai Sentai Shinkenger
 * Kaoru Sugimura (m) - Nana to Kaoru
 * Kaoru Watabe (f) - King of Fighters 97
 * Kaoru Yamazaki 山崎 薫 (m) - Welcome to the NHK
 * Kaoru Mido (f) - Tsukuyomi: Moon Phase
 * Kaoru Ichihara 壱原かおる (f) - Mahou No Princess Club! De Javu!
 * Kaoru Kirishima (m) - Our Two Bedroom Love Story
 * Kaoru Nagumo (m) - Hakuouki
 * Kaoru Seta 瀬田薫 (f) - BanG Dream!
 * Kaoru Sakurayashiki (m) - SK8 the Infinity
 * Kaoru Hakaze 羽風薫 (m) - Ensemble Stars!

title: Kaoru


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Chetniks

I vote for deletion.

I vote for no deletion!


text: Template:DoctorWho-stub

title: Template:DoctorWho-stub


text:
Category:Towns in the Northern Territory

This category contains articles about towns in the Northern Territory, Australia.


text: User talk:4.38.70.2

title: User talk:4.38.70.2


text: Category:Doctor Who stubs

title: Category:Doctor Who stubs


text:
Río Negro Department

Río Negro Department (Departamento de Río Negro, ) is a department of the northwestern region of Uruguay. It has an area of 9282 km2 and a population of 54,765. Its capital is Fray Bentos. It borders Paysandú Department to the north, Tacuarembó Department to the east, Durazno Department to the southeast, Soriano Department to the south and has the Río Uruguay flowing at its west, separating it from Argentina.

History
The first division of the Republic in six departments happened on 27 January 1816. Later in that year two more departments were formed. At the time, Paysandú Department included all the territory north of the Río Negro, which included the current departments of Artigas, Rivera, Tacuarembó, Salto, Paysandú and Río Negro. On 17 June 1837 a new division of Uruguay was made and this territory was divided in three parts. In the new division, Paysandú Department also included the current department of Río Negro, until it was split from it in 1868.

Geography
The Río Negro flows along the southern border of the department, forming the natural border with the departments of Durazno to the southeast and Soriano to the south. Tributary streams (arroyos) to the Río Negro, flow through most of the department. From east to west, these are: Arroyo Salsipuedes Grande, which forms part of the border with Tacuarembó Department to the east, while its tributary Arroyo Juan Tomas forms a little part of the northeast border with Paysandú Department, Arroyo Tres Árboles with its tributary Arroyo Islas de Argüelles, Arroyo Rolón, Arroyo Grande, with its tributaries Arroyo de las Flores and Arroyo Averías Grande, Arroyo Don Esteban Grande, Arroyo Sanchez Grande, with its tributaries Arroyo Sanchez Chico and Arroyo Coladeras.

The Río Negro discharges into Río Uruguay about 32 km southwest of Fray Bentos. Notable along its course in respect to this department are two hydroelectric dams: the Rincón de Baygorria Dam, forming the Baygorria Reservoir and the Constitución Dam (also known as Palmar Dam), forming the Paso de Palmar Reservoir. In both cases, the power installations are situated on the neighbouring departments of Durazno and Soriano respectively.

A big part of the north border with Paysandú Department is formed by Arroyo Negro with two of its tributary streams flowing through the northwest of the department. These are: Arroyo Gutiérez Grande and Arroyo Bellaco. It discharges into Río Uruguay about 21 km north of San Javier and opposite the city of Argentina Concepción del Uruguay, forming at its mouth a sandy beach named Playa Arroyo Negro. There is also Arroyo Romàn Grande, which discharges directly into Río Uruguay. Several sandy islands are formed in the curve of Río Uruguay upstream of Fray Bentos between Uruguay and Argentina.

On the northeast part of the department starts the big hill range Cuchilla de Haedo, which extends to the northeast forming its highest levels between the departments of Salto and Rivera. The hill Cerro del Quebracho is part of this range. The second and smaller hill range, in the west part of the department, is the Cuchilla de Navarro. Independent of these ranges, the hill Cerro Pelado is in the middle south, and the hills Cerro Colorado and Cerro Malvenir are southeast of Fray Bentos.

Demographics
As of the census of 2011, Río Negro Department had a population of 54,765 (27,576 male and 27,189 female) and 20,975 households.

Demographic data for Río Negro Department in 2010: 2010 Data Source:
 * Population growth rate: 0.529%
 * Birth Rate: 15.82 births/1,000 people
 * Death Rate: 7.38 deaths/1,000 people
 * Average age: 31.5 (31.3 Males, 31.6 Females)
 * Life Expectancy at Birth:
 * Total population: 78.04 years
 * Male: 74.78 years
 * Female: 81.05 years
 * Average per household income: 25,585 pesos/month
 * Urban per capita income: 9,137 pesos/month

 * Rural population

According to the 2011 census, Río Negro department has an additional rural population of 5,212.

Economy
Agriculture is the main source of industry in the western part of the department. The main agricultural products are flax, sunflower, wheat, maize, grains, grapes, amongst others. The eastern half of the department has many pastures for the grazing of sheep and cattle which are an important contributor to the economy of the department. The main industries are again based around agro-industry the most prominent being wineries and dairies. The department also has a fluvial port located in Fray Bentos.

Tourism is becoming popular in the department especially in the thermal spas around the area of Las Cañas.

Botnia
Botnia S.A., a subsidiary of Finnish corporation Botnia, is currently building a large cellulose factory in Fray Bentos to produce bleached eucalyptus pulp. The investment in the project is about 1 billion USD and the factory will directly or indirectly employ more than 8,000 people. The project, however, is not without opponents. On 30 April 2005 about 40,000 Argentinians from Entre Ríos, along with environmental groups from both countries, blocked an international bridge and demanded the Argentine government to intercede before the Uruguayan one to stop the building of the factory, claiming it will gravely pollute the Uruguay River. On 20 December 2005 a World Bank study concluded that the factory would not have a negative impact on the environment or tourism in either country, however, this was not accepted by the environmental groups, who blocked again the bridge (partially blocking the bridge near Paysandu, as well) several times near the end of 2005.

Notable people

 * Guillermo Stirling (1937- ) was the Colorado Party's presidential candidate in 2005
 * Gaston Ramirez (Fray Bentos, December 2, 1990) football player for Southampton F.C
 * Vladimir Roslik, a Russian-Uruguayan medical doctor tortured and later killed by the Uruguayan military during their regime (1973–1984)

title: Río Negro Department


text:
Italy at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Italy competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. 361 competitors, 246 men and 115 women, took part in 175 events in 29 sports.

Archery
The men's team, which returned two members of the bronze medal-winning 1996 squad, did even better in 2000. They defeated the United States in the semifinal to guarantee themselves at least a silver medal. The Korean men, however, ensured that the Italians did not win the gold medal by defeating them in the final.

 * Men

 * Women

Combined events

 * Women's heptathlon

Baseball
Italy was one of the four nations for which the third Olympic baseball tournament continued their streak of unbroken appearances. The Italians went 2–5 in the preliminary round, defeating the Netherlands and South Africa. This put them in sixth place and eliminated them from competition.

Men's

 * Team roster
 * Alessandro Abbio
 * Gianluca Basile
 * Roberto Chiacig
 * Marcelo Dilglay Damiao
 * Gregor Fučka
 * Giacomo Galanda
 * Agostino Antonio Li Vecchi
 * Denis Marconato
 * Andrea Meneghin
 * Michele Mian
 * Carlton Myers
 * German Claudio Scarone

Canoeing

 * Slalom

 * Sprint

Road cycling

 * Road race

 * Road time trial

Track cycling

 * Points race

 * Keirin

 * Pursuit

Diving

 * Men

 * Women

Equestrian

 * Dressage

 * Eventing

 * Show jumping

Fencing
17 fencers, 12 men and 5 women, represented Italy in 2000.
 * Men

 * Women

Men's team competition

 * Team roster

 * ( 1.) Morgan De Sanctis
 * ( 2.) Alessandro Grandoni
 * ( 3.) Luca Mezzano
 * ( 4.) Marco Zanchi
 * ( 5.) Matteo Ferrari
 * ( 6.) Gennaro Gattuso
 * ( 7.) Gianni Comandini
 * ( 8.) Roberto Baronio
 * ( 9.) Nicola Ventola
 * (10.) Andrea Pirlo
 * (11.) Gianluca Zambrotta
 * (12.) Massimo Margiotta
 * (13.) Massimo Ambrosini
 * (14.) Claudio Rivalta
 * (15.) Bruno Cirillo
 * (16.) Ighli Vannucchi
 * (17.) Cristiano Zanetti
 * (18.) Christian Abbiati
 * (19.) Gennaro Scarlato
 * (20.) Stefano Morrone
 * (21.) Fabio Firmani
 * (22.) Cristiano Lupatelli

 * Group stage

 * Quarter-finals

Women

 * Team

 * Individual

Judo

 * Men

 * Women

Rhythmic gymnastics

 * Individual

 * Team

Rowing
27 Italian rowers, all male, competed.

Sailing
Italy competed in ten of the sailing events at the 2000 Sydney Olympics and won two medals.
 * Men

 * Women

 * Open events

Shooting

 * Men

 * Women

Softball

 * Team roster
 * Marta Gambella
 * Daniela Castellani
 * Susan Bugliarello
 * Francesca Francolini
 * Nicole Di Salvio
 * Verusca Paternoster
 * Giovanna Palermi
 * Jie Hua
 * Clelia Ailara
 * Sabrina Comberlato
 * Claudia Petracchi
 * Loredana Auletta
 * Yue-Fen Sun
 * Alessandra Gorla
 * Marina Cergol

 * Results

Men's team competition

 * Team roster
 * Marco Bracci
 * Mirko Corsano
 * Alessandro Fei
 * Andrea Gardini
 * Andrea Giani
 * Pasquale Gravina
 * Luigi Mastrangelo
 * Marco Meoni
 * Samuele Papi
 * Simone Rosalba
 * Andrea Sartoretti
 * Paolo Tofoli
 * Nyembo Mwarabu
 * Head coach: Andrea Anastasi

 * Results

Women's team competition

 * Team roster
 * Sabrina Bertini
 * Antonella Bragaglia
 * Maurizia Cacciatori
 * Ana Paula de Tassis
 * Manuela Leggeri
 * Eleonora Lo Bianco
 * Anna Vania Mello
 * Darina Mifkova
 * Paola Paggi
 * Francesca Piccinini
 * Simona Rinieri
 * Elisa Togut
 * Head coach: Angelo Frigoni

 * Results

Water polo

 * Team roster
 * Alberto Angelini
 * Francesco Attolico
 * Fabio Bencivenga
 * Leonardo Binchi
 * Alberto Ghibellini
 * Amedeo Pomilio
 * Francesco Postiglione
 * Carlo Silipo
 * Leonardo Sottani
 * Stefano Tempesti
 * Antonio Vittorioso

 * Summary

Weightlifting
Men

Wrestling

 * Greco-Roman

title: Italy at the 2000 Summer Olympics


text:
Sergeant Kirk

Sergeant Kirk or Sgt. Kirk (El Sargento Kirk) is the main character of the Western comics series of the same title by Italian comic book creator Hugo Pratt and Argentine author Héctor Germán Oesterheld.

Publication history
The series, created in Argentina during the Golden Age of Argentine Comics, was first published in issue 225 of the weekly comics magazine Misterix on January 9, 1953. Sargento Kirk continued its run in Misterix until issue 475 on December 20, 1957, when Oesterheld's own publishing house Editorial Frontera was established, and the series resumed in the Frontera magazines Frontera Extra and Hora Cero Suplemento Semanal. It ran until 1961 with drawings by Pratt, Jorge Moliterni, Horacio Porreca and Gisela Dexter. An additional Sargento Kirk story was published in 1973 in the magazine Billiken, drawn by Gustavo Trigo.

Synopsis
Sergeant Kirk is a former soldier of the American Civil War who goes on to serve in the post-war Wild West. Forced to participate in a massacre of American Indians by the U.S. Army, Kirk deserts and devotes himself to defending the Indians. An essentially noble man, Kirk treats even his enemies with tolerance and humanitarianism. Among Kirk's companions appearing in the series are "El Corto", Dr. Forbes and the Native American boy, Maha.

Magazine
Sergeant Kirk (Il Sergente Kirk) was chosen as the name of the comics magazine Pratt launched in Italy in July 1967 by publisher Florenzo Ivaldi (Ivaldi Editore). This carried showcased work from the Argentine period, as well as the series Luck Star O'Hara, Gli Scorpioni del Deserto, and the first publication of Corto Maltese in the story Una Ballata del Mare Salato. The magazine maintained regular distribution until December 1969 and was issued sporadically during the 1970s.

title: Sergeant Kirk


text:
Serampore

Serampore (also called Serampur, Srirampur, Srirampore, Shreerampur, Shreerampore, Shrirampur or Shrirampore) is a city in Hooghly district in the Indian state of West Bengal. It is the headquarters of the Srirampore subdivision. It is a part of the area covered by Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) and Greater Kolkata. It is a pre-colonial city on the west bank of the Hooghly River. It was part of Danish India under the name Frederiknagore from 1755 to 1845.

Location
Serampore is located at 22.75°N, 88.34°W.

The area consists of flat alluvial plains, that form a part of the Gangetic Delta. This belt is highly industrialised.

Police stations
Serampore police station has jurisdiction over Serampore and Baidyabati Municipal areas, and parts of Sreerampur Uttarpara CD Block. Serampore Women police station has been set up.

Urbanisation
Srirampore subdivision is the most urbanized of the subdivisions in Hooghly district. 73.13% of the population in the subdivision is urban and 26.88% is rural. The subdivision has 6 municipalities and 34 census towns. The municipalities are: Dankuni Municipality, Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality, Konnagar Municipality, Rishra Municipality, Serampore Municipality and Baidyabati Municipality. Amongst the CD Blocks in the subdivision, Uttarapara Serampore (census towns shown in the map alongside) had 76% urban population, Chanditala I 42%, Chanditala II 69% and Jangipara 7% (census towns in the last 3 CD Blocks are shown in a separate map). All places marked in the map are linked in the larger full-screen map.

Demographics
At the 2011 census, Serampore had a population of 181,842. Males constituted 51.55% of the population and females 48.45%. It had an average literacy rate of 88.73%, higher than the national average of 74.04%: male literacy was 92.75% and female literacy 87.05%; 7% of the population was under 6 years of age.

Kolkata Urban Agglomeration
The following Municipalities and Census Towns in Hooghly district were part of Kolkata Urban Agglomeration in 2011 census: Bansberia (M), Hugli-Chinsurah (M), Bara Khejuria (Out Growth), Shankhanagar (CT), Amodghata (CT), Chak Bansberia (CT), Naldanga (CT), Kodalia (CT), Kulihanda (CT), Simla (CT), Dharmapur (CT), Bhadreswar (M), Champdani (M), Chandannagar (M Corp.), Baidyabati (M), Serampore (M), Rishra (M), Rishra (CT), Bamunari (CT), Dakshin Rajyadharpur (CT), Nabagram Colony (CT), Konnagar (M), Uttarpara Kotrung (M), Raghunathpur (PS-Dankuni) (CT), Kanaipur (CT) and Keota (CT).

Education

 * Serampore College
 * Pearl Rosary School - Mahesh ( WBBSE, WBCHSE)
 * Government College of Engineering and Textile Technology
 * Serampore Union Institution
 * Serampore Girls' College
 * Mahesh Sri Ramkrishna Ashram Vidyalaya (Higher Secondary)
 * Serampore Girl's High School (Akna Girl's High School)
 * Chatra Nandalal Institution
 * Serampore Mission Girls High School
 * Malina Lahiri Boy's Academy
 * Holy Home School
 * West Point Academy
 * Gospel Home school
 * Pearl Rosary school (West Chatra)
 * Kidzee
 * Bangla High School
 * Ballavpur High School
 * Mahesh high School
 * Mahesh Banga Vidyalaya
 * Ramesh Chandra Girl's High School
 * Rajyadharpur Netaji Uchcha Balika Vidyalaya
 * Parameshwari Girl's High School
 * Nabagram K D Paul Vidyalaya
 * Chatra Bani Balika Vidyalaya
 * Anjuman.n.c.l.project School
 * Aurobindo N.c.l.p School
 * Bharati Balika Pry. School
 * Fatema Girls Jr. High School
 * Gopinath Saha Pry. School
 * Mission Girls High School
 * Nayabasti Sree Shiva Jr High School
 * Saraswati.n.c.l.p Special School
 * Viswanath Vidyamandir
 * Prabash Nagar G.s.f.p.
 * Mallickpara Municipal Free Pry
 * Mallickpara Municipal Free Pry

title: Serampore


text:
Bellingham, Northumberland

Bellingham is a village and civil parish in Northumberland, to the north-west of Newcastle upon Tyne and is situated on the Hareshaw Burn at its confluence with the River North Tyne. In 2011 the parish had a population of 1334.

Features
Famous as a stopping point on the Pennine Way trail it is popular with walkers and cyclists. Nearby is the Hareshaw Linn, a waterfall and the site of early coke blast furnaces.

The village's local newspaper is the Hexham Courant. There is also an 18-hole golf course which was established in 1893.

The Heritage Centre is the local museum. It has exhibitions on the Border Counties Railway, the Border reivers, mining, farming, the photography of W P Collier, and the Stannersburn Smithy. It has a database of local family names and one of old photographs. It also holds special exhibitions of historical or artistic interest, and readings and performances by poets, storytellers, musicians and dancers.

St Cuthbert's
The Grade-I listed Church of St Cuthbert (13th century, substantially reconstructed in the early 17th century) is described as 'almost unique in England' owing to its stone barrel vault, which runs the length of the nave and extends into the south transept. Three miracles in Bellingham connected with the mediaeval cult of St Cuthbert are recorded in the twelfth-century Libellus of Reginald of Durham.

Within the churchyard on the north side is "The Lang Pack", purportedly the grave of a burglar who attempted to infiltrate a local house by hiding in a beggar's pack, but was discovered after he suffered an ill-timed coughing fit, and was promptly run through with the sword of the house's proprietor.

Adjacent to the church is St Cuthbert's Well, known locally as "Cuddy's Well", an ancient holy well. The well is in the middle of a grassy path leading down to the river, on the other side of the churchyard wall.

From 1735 the parish rectors at Bellingham were under the patronage of the Governors of Greenwich Hospital. The Governors stipulated that the rectors were to be graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, and naval chaplains. Bellingham Rectory was one of six such rectories in the Simonburn area, the others being Falstone, Greystead, Thorneyburn, Wark on Tyne and Simonburn.

Landmarks
Bellingham Bridge is a Grade II listed building built in 1834. It crosses the North Tyne. Bellingham Town Hall was completed in 1862.

Two miles north-east at Hole Farm is a 16th-century Grade II* listed building, Hole Bastle, a well-preserved example of a bastle house. Another example is Black Middens Bastle House which is situated in an isolated spot on the north side of the Tarset Valley. It is managed by English Heritage.

Shitlington Crags is a crag near Shitlington Hall, south of Bellingham. The crag is at an average height of 170 metres. The Pennine Way passes by the crag.

There is a former Union Workhouse located along the main street of Bellingham.

Notable residents

 * Sir David Lindsay Keir, the historian and academic, was born and brought up here.

Governance
Bellingham is in the parliamentary constituency of Hexham. Guy Opperman of the Conservative Party is the Member of Parliament.

For Local Government purposes it belongs to Northumberland County Council a unitary authority. An electoral ward in the same name exists. This ward stretches north to the Scottish Border with a total population of 4,074. The incumbent Councillor of the Bellingham ward is John Riddle, who is a member of the Conservative Party.

Bellingham has its own parish council; Bellingham Parish Council.

Sports
The village football team competes in the Tyneside Amateur League First Division.

title: Bellingham, Northumberland


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Baugh

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 23:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Baugh
Non-notable. Vanity page? Delete. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is similar to listing all the actors on your favourite sitcom. Personally, I'd say if this is all they can say about him, he should be merged into the article of whoever it is that has employed him. Average Earthman 20:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect into something. The JPS 21:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um...according to the article, he's 11 years old. "Mike Baugh" +wrestler gets no google hits. I don't think this person even exists, or if they do, they're an 11-year old and certainly not a professional wrestler. Delete unless proven factual. Meelar (talk) 21:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed that blatant clue (although it could be a typo meant to be 1984 I suppose). Average Earthman 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * An 11-year-old professional wrestler? Sheesh, right. Delete.   — J I P | Talk 03:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. --Carnildo 22:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, hoax. Probably someone showing their son wikipedia. Megan1967 02:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable or fake. -- Paulley 13:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.