|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 1||Archive 2||Archive 3|
"Common in almost every household"
"Bed bugs are still very common and can be found in almost every household."
This is nonsense. I have travelled the world for fifteen years and only encountered bedbugs once. They are not common pests. They are especially nasty surprises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, 126.96.36.199. Here's an article which notes that, despite the recent spread of bedbugs in the USA, "there are thousands of pest control professionals out there who have never had to do the bedbug job." So it obviously cannot be true that bedbugs are found in almost every household. (To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen one.) That sentence was added to the article on 17 October, 2007 by an anonymous editor using IP 188.8.131.52.. It appears to be simple vandalism, so I'll remove it. NCdave 07:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Bedbugs do not jump"
A simple search for "bedbugs jump" will offer many sources citing that bedbugs DO jump. That they are capable of jumping several feet, or jumping from host to host. Perhaps it would be beneficial to include this misinformation (if it is misinformation) more prominently. I have always believed that bedbugs were able to jump quite far.184.108.40.206 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading an article on another insect (ticks), I noticed that the section on removal had been removed. Is it appropriate to include a how-to pest control section in an article such as this? I wonder if the how-to section might not be better suited to wikibooks. In particular, the recommendation to mix pesticide and kerosene seems a bit-- well, scary. --Tom Allen 06:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What version of Tick had a section on removal? I think this kind of information is appropriate and encyclopedic. Ticks and bedbugs are of primary interest to humans as pests, and one of the most important things to find out about pests is how to get rid of them and keep them away. Information of purely entomological/scientific interest is certainly very appropriate, but so is this kind of common knowledge about pest control. If it were to become very long than a separate article might be in order but that seems unlikely. NTK 16:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- There was formerly an article on Tick removal. (Actually, I first discovered it after our dog got her first (of many) ticks!) This version of Tick refers to the removal article, which has since been deleted. Several objected to including how-to instructions in an encyclopedia. (On the other hand, many print encyclopedias do precisely that!) I'm fine with leaving it in-- I was just wondering if there was a policy. Having said that, I do think the section could be cleaned up quite a bit. If a how-to section is included, it should provide sound, properly referenced, information. --Tom Allen 20:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that "how-to" articles belong in an encyclopedia, but that's different from the description of procedures and processes. There doesn't need to be a separate article on "tick removal," a brief description in the "Tick" article proper should suffice. NTK 19:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Proposal to Remove "Self-Removal" Section
I have marked the area regarding "self-removal" as "dubious," because I personally believe that a lot of its advice probably will not lead to successful removal. For example, I don't believe that most any insecticide will work, I think it's unwise to mix kerosene and something identified only as "insect poison" yourself, and fogging to the best of my knowledge has absolutely no effect on bedbugs. I also highly doubt that bedbugs can be treated without insecticide and do not believe that vacuuming a mattress every two to three days for several weeks will work. In short, I disagree with the effectiveness of almost everything in the "self-removal" section. Frankly, I propose its removal. The only thing I think is salvageable from that paragraph is the vaseline/glass jars paragraph, as I do think that is probably a good tip for very temporary prevention while other things are being carried out. — WCityMike (T | C) 16:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's really actively paying attention to this article. I'll call for an informal vote to delete the self-removal section, and, if it turns out to be the case, I'll make the edits above in a week's time., removing most of it (I'll put it here in the 'Talk' page for preservation) and moving the glass jar/Vaseline stuff elsewhere in the aritcle. — WCityMike (T | C) 01:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Removed text: Some convenient and do-it-yourself ways of removing bedbugs will involve a variety of products and several weeks to months of effort to completely eradicate the household of bedbugs. It is recommended that all cracks, crevices, corners and moldings be sprayed using a can of any kind of insect killer. Kerosene mixed with insect poison (available at any hardware store or exterminator) and dissolved mothballs in warm water will create a mixture that is very potent in removing bedbugs. The elements of the mixture should be mixed in equal portions. The mixture should be sprayed along the sides of walls on the floor.
- Removed text: Indoor foggers with a dispersion of mothballs all over the room(s) should be set. Allow a minimum of twelve hours for the clean up of mothballs and fogger. This process should be repeated if bedbugs resurface.
- Fumigations are very effective. Some companies refuse to treat mattresses and cloth furniture not only because of the difficulties of treating them but also, due to the liabilities involved. People spend plenty of time sleeping or resting on furniture and may have complaints about the pesticides. Some pest control companies remove all mattresses, box springs, furniture, etc from a residence and fumigate. The fumigant will kill all the stages of the bed bugs and penetrate even those hard to reach areas. The drawback is that the fumigants have no residual action and will not prevent any re-infestation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 12:28, November 21, 2005
- A Fogging is different from a Fumigation. Foggers are merely droplets of pesticides suspended in air. Although they might kill some bed bugs on contact they are probably ineffective. A fumigant is a gas that will penetrate every crack and crevice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 12:34, November 21, 2005
- Removed text: Removal of bedbugs can be effected by replacing mattresses or treating them with an insecticide designed for bedbugs (bedbugs are readily susceptible to insecticides). Clothing and bedding items should be washed with hot water (50° C and above) and machine dried at a high temperature for at least 20 minutes.
- Removed text: It may be possible to control bedbugs without use of insecticides. It may not be advisable to use insecticides on a mattress particularly if a child sleeps on it.
- Removed text: It may also be necessary to isolate the mattress from the encroachment of bedbugs simply by making sure there is no direct contact with other objects in the room. The bed frame can be effectively isolated by the application of Vaseline or double sided sticky tape (e.g. carpet tape) around the circumference of the bed frame legs.
- Removed text: Carefully vacuum-cleaning the mattress and the bedroom every 2 or 3 days for several weeks may effectively eliminate bedbugs. The vacuum cleaner contents must be removed from the premises after each cleaning.
- Removed text: Carpeting should be replaced.
In the process of discovering and then obtaining treatment for a recent bedbug infestation, I learned a great deal about them, both from research on the Web and from discussions with my exterminator. I have attempted to integrate the results of this research into Wikipedia's article by including both all of the various links I found, as well as all of the research I discovered (and links to said articles). — WCityMike (T | C) 16:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe: I've crushed my share of them. The ones that have eaten recently only have a few drops of blood in them. Also, I asked my exterminator how I would know if my apartment has hundreds or millions of these things and he said that if I had millions, I'd be "losing five pounds a night." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 22:04, January 23, 2006
- I crushed a couple of them after a sleepless night in the car outside the hostel I paid for ... obviously a couple of them had followed me to the car in my clothes or bags. There was quite a bit of blood there, and the bugs were pretty sizable, maybe a centimeter or so. Not sure how much - I shudder to contemplate trying to measure it; crushing the things alone made me want to vomit - but it was definitely more than a drop or two, and the whole thing seemed filled with blood; the smudge left was all blood colored, no bug-guts or whatever. Ugh. Excuse me now while I go get sick again....--csloat 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Just did another cleanup on the article. Understandably, i've not wanted to revisit this subject in my mind! However, a lot of duplicative information got placed in here, and I even saw some debates being written into the article itself (the diamataceous earth stuff, whether disposing of bedding is necessary, vacuuming, etc.). I took a whack at getting things evened out a little better. — WCityMike (T | C) 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
A recent ABC News story on the global rise in bedbugs quotes an Australian who stayed at an infested hostel as claiming to have got blood poisoning from them. I could find no documentation that bedbugs could cause blood poisoning, so this seems to be misinformation and sloppy reporting. Someone else who saw the spot or read articles based on it might want to include that information in this article, so unless it can be validated, it should be kept out, except to say it's misinformation. --Coyoty 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
irritated look Spent some more time fixing things. It appears as if quote-unquote-contributors are taking no care in deciding where they're going to put their contribution, or even seeing if their remarks duplicate material elsewhere. — WCityMike (T | C) 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Removal of External Links
Revert wars never look good to the end user. Let's hash out here and then act. I'm not one of the reverters, but I am the Wikipedian who did the first major rehash on the article after my bedbug infestation last summer, and initially put in the links. My stance is that they should stay in. Wikipedia's "External Links" page indicates that "sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" and "sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" are perfectly acceptable for inclusion in external links. This is hardly an indiscriminate collection of links. — WCityMike (T | C) 00:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is, indeed, unfortunate. Look back at the history. An advertisement for live-pest-free.com was added by 126.96.36.199/188.8.131.52. At the same time, a blog was added, which some people saw simply as a testimonial for the live-pest-free.com site. The revert war was with respect to the advertising. The other links suffered collateral damage. That aside, the question still remains as to whether blogs belong. Almost by definition, blogs are personal opinions. Do they belong in an encyclopedia? If so, when do you stop? What criteria do you use to select the links? Ted 03:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually trying to zap the ads -- I don't know as I agree that the blogs were collateral damage from the ad revert. I don't know as they really deserve to be zapped in this case, because of the sole fact that when these people are speaking of their attempts to deal with bedbugs, they are sharing informative personal experiences. Also, seriously, bedbugs are not really a point of controversy -- it's not like we're speaking of political blogs about Bush and debating whether THOSE blogs belong on a Dubya entry. — WCityMike (T | C) 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would help for the external links to distinguish themselves with notes on what makes them notable. Just having the link without description invites deletion if it looks like it doesn't contribute anything. (BTW, I'm disappointed that the home bug suffocator doesn't really exist. Oxygen deprivation for pest control is used for library and museum preservation, but those are closed systems, and an apartment isn't airtight enough.) --Coyoty 04:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Breakfast, lunch, and dinner
Is this term really associated with bedbugs? I've seen it used for scabies around the Internet, but only here for bedbugs. Coyoty 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How long does it take bedbug eggs to hatch? I don't see that information anywhere in this article. I've read anywhere between 6 to 10 days for the eggs to hatch
10 days read at: http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic600.htm
bruiser07 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also read articles that say it depends on the temperature of the surroundings. At 18 degrees C, it takes 20 days for the eggs to hatch, but at 25 degrees C it takes only 7 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 17:23, April 8, 2006
Removal of Charles Campbell External Link
The Charles A. Campbell 1911 article is continually being removed by individuals who indicate that whale.to is a contentious site and a linkspammer.
The external link in question has no advertisements on it whatsoever; it is simply an essay. The open Request for Comment specifically "concerns the appropriateness of Whaleto linking to his personal website, and his conduct relating to such discussions." This is not the case with this external link; it was not placed on there by the user Whaleto; it was placed on there by me in one of my initial rewrites of the article.
I have reviewed, as suggested, WP:EL, and I have no idea what is meant by JzG's comment in the edit history that "copies of other sources on private sites are not generally suitable." Perhaps he'd be so kind as to elucidate which item on WP:EL he is referring to. The site seems to fully satisfy the suggested prerequisites listed under "What should be linked to" and embody none of the prerequisites listed under "Links to normally avoid". Additionally it does not appear to be external link spamming.
Despite the above, I'm not married to the whale.to source of the article and am more than comparable to a lateral edit. My point is: it is not fruitful to make entirely destructive changes for purposes of pure pedantic bureaucracy. If you have a personal problem with the version of the article being housed on whale.to, then find another source and change the link; don't just remove the source of information from the article. — WCityMike (T | C) 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
While I was gone, I noticed that the whale.to link was removed. I've found a non-whale.to link to the story. Additionally, there appear to be some concerns about its copyright status. As the new provided link indicates, it was copyrighted 1925; this means that as it was not renewed, the article now falls into the public domain. If there are any other objections, please let me know. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Removal of Bed-Bug.Org Link
I'm not disputing the removal , but I'm puzzled. I go to the site in question, and even with AdBlock Plus disabled, I only see one line worth of Google ads -- plus, Googling the text he's using yields no results on Google, leading me to believe it might be original writing. I've seen this link deleted before as a "Google Ads-farm" site, but I'm not certain I really see it. Can someone explain it for me? — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite of 220.127.116.11's Edit / Sort of Edit-Warring
Just to let those who are editing this article know that there's a difference of opinion going on between me and an anonymous editor — but because they're editing anonymously, the IP occasionally changes. I'm making a good faith effort to work it out despite some reverting back and forth, but felt I should give you guys a heads-up since it was attracting shades of "edit war" to it. I do feel, however, that the edits the anonymous editor is making are really pushing a POV. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I've changed your latest contribution so it doesn't quite so strongly advocate a particular opinion. If you're the person I think you are, we've been going back and forth in a sort of very slow "edit war," where you make changes, I revert them, you go and make them again, and I revert them (for example: you, me). That's never healthy for Wikipedia.
- This time, I'm trying to incorporate your changes but get them more towards a neutral point of view, which is the tone that Wikipedia articles are required to be written in. You used words like "worthless" and "reputable," which are words that demonstrate an opinion and a bias about something. Since we're writing encyclopedia articles, we're required as editors and writers to keep an objective tone and not let our opinions about the subject shine through. More on this can be found at WP:NPOV.
- I'd like to see if we can come to a happy compromise, but it's difficult when you're editing from an anonymous account and seem to be coming from different IPs. I urge you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and come talk with me about what you feel needs to be done on the article's talk page, Talk:Bedbug. I'm cc:ing this message there, just so people know I'm leaving this. I encourage you to work with me on getting this paragraph to a place where we're both mutually satisfied with it, instead of us just yanking it back and forth between our two ideas about how the paragraph should be written.
- Hope to see you over on the article's talk page! — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View
First,, i was not aware of the discussion aspect of Wikipedia.. I too have found it frustrating to enter relevant information of value to readers and then find it either deleted or changed..
I would not enter info into a Wikipedia subject if I didn't have reasonable knowledge of the subject. IN the bedbug item, there is a considerable amount of suggestions and information about prevention, preparation, and treatment. While I may not always agree with every point of view, i do feel it my duty to inform and educate and warn readers in certain areas. So wehn i see something about Most reputable firms will ask for preparation.. i know that is patently incorrect -- and i changed it to ALL reputable firms.. that is just reality... not opinion or POV... no specific firm is named, so the recommendation speaks truth.. and in any service related item, this kind of information is absolutely necessary.. I am sure many of the bedbug sections are written by professionals in the pest control, professors of entomology and , like myself.. some Board Certified Entomologists .... i was beginning to feel as if someone in a disreputable firm did not want the warnings there...
still learning about how to input into wikipedia...
i had entered in another section and found deletions of very relevant information.. troubling.. so in that section (not bedbugs) .. i am pasting it back in every time i see it gone. I feel it a duty so people can have the important information someone else wants to hide or whitewash...
I look to the folks in Wikipedia to be on the alert for inappropriate entries, but mostly i find the material is really excellent..
i have not had time to go through every single bit of the bedbug item, but i will keep a watch on it and add material as it becomes known.. The use of glue boards and balloons to detect bedbugs is unproven.. i tried it.. perhaps not enough there.. some people tell me it works, .. wish we had more relevant info on that.. they are sometimes very very hard to find... when there is a hidden small pocket that has avoided being detected or treated...
I deal wtih this issue every day in my work...
- Your addition, "Due to the habits of bedbugs to hide almost anywhere, it is necessary to ensure that the treatment of the home as well handling clothing and bedding will ensure that the insects are all killed by treatment", says the exact same thing as what's already in that paragraph: "If an apartment is not properly prepared either by the resident or the professional, the coverage of pesticides and/or chemical treatment throughout the home will be impaired, and thus the effectiveness of the treatment will be heavily reduced." But I reworded that last sentence a little to make it clearer that we're talking about bedbugs surviving the treatment.
- We also talk about the ability of bedbugs to spread from one apartment to another higher-up in the article, because it's not speaking about pre-treatment, but about methods of infestation: "Finally, bedbugs may travel between units in multi-unit dwellings (such as condominiums and apartment buildings), after being originally brought into the building by one of the above routes. This spread between units is dependent in part on the degree of infestation, on the material used to partition units (concrete is a more effective barrier to the spread of the infestation), and whether or not infested items are dragged through common areas while being disposed of, resulting in the shedding of bedbugs and bedbug eggs while being dragged."
- And, again, "reputable" is a word demonstrating bias and opinion. It's not a question of disreputable exterminators trying to sneak things in, Entoman; I'm not an exterminator. But this is an encyclopedia, and as such, we're seeking an entirely neutral point of view. That means keeping our opinions out of it. That doesn't mean we can't say things, just that we can't say things in an opinionated way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 23:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your point about 'reputable' but i am ok with the current phrasing of the preparation section, so no need for more editing wars. will check the piece now and then.. i changed delusionary to delusory as i believe that is the correct term describing the condition. I wrote an article on that about 18 years ago. Lots of stuff here on bedbugs... useful .... wikipedia an amazing thing.. Mike. how did you get so much into bedbugs? Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entoman (talk • contribs)
- Not immensely into bedbugs, but I got infested last year, and ended up asking my exterminator about five million questions. After I "survived" the infestation (partially by moving out!), I decided that it would be good if I could share what I learned from the experience, and rewrote the bedbug article to incorporate everything I learned. Nowadays bedbugs are mostly behind me — although, frankly, I'm jumpy enough that I might have a slight case of the D.P.s — but out of a sense of pride, I keep an eye on the bedbug article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Use of the word "domicile"
This is a rather archaic word that one almost never hears in language for most readers. It means home or residence, and perhaps the word may be useful in a legal document, but for an article intended for a wide range of readers, not the best word in my experience. Confusing for some readers.. The word "home" or "residence" can be used interchangeably for variety without losing any readers. "Domo-what?".. after all we don't want to obfuscate the readership... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Entoman (talk • contribs)
- Yup, and, guess what, I'm a legal secretary, so "domicile" must've been in my head whenever I worked on that part of the article. ;-) Swapped out all the other instances of "domicile" for "home" as well. Good call. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would hardly call "domicile" archaic. It may not be as commonly used as "home" or "house", but I have certainly come across it a number of times in general reading. In addition it appears that you are also one to unnecessarily complicate things by using words such as "obfuscate" in the place of "confuse". Let's not by hypocritical... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- I also disagree that "domicile" is archaic. I don't think we should be underestimating the intelligence of the readers and dumbing down to meet some arbitrary lowest common denominator. People don't come to Wikipedia for dumbing down, they come here for smarting up, and to look things up, including the meaning of words like "domicile". And "bedbug". Coyoty 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I've heard domicile many times in my life, this was the first time I've actually seen it written.
Who wrote the original version?
Does anyone know who wrote the original version of this article? I ask because I'm curious who it was, but I also feel the need to make a contribution to the text. In the section that refers to "number of visits by a pest management company" the author refers to an informal survey. I was one of the project leaders of that survey and it was not informal. I could add more information or a citation to an article to come out this summer covering more of the survey. I'm a new user (as of today) to Wikipedia, so I'm still figuring all this out. Jlgk723 19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was the one who introduced that language into the text of the article. I'm not sure why I used the word "informal," however, and after looking at the link that follows that sentence, "informal" is not mentioned anywhere in the source, either -- so I've removed it. However, if you see errors anywhere on Wikipedia, don't worry about asking permission, just feel free to go ahead and fix them! — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you WCityMike for this article! My neighbor is dealing with an infestation he picked up at a sleep study clinic (of all places!), and he's on round two of elimination efforts.
My question is actually addressed to whoever posted the link, "Photograph of a bedbug feeding on a man (for scale)"? The URL is http://www.fagerlund.addr.com/BedbugC.jpg, but this is a password-protected link. It could just be deleted, but it does seem useful. If the owner is OK with it permission-wise, the photo could just be uploaded to Wiki, right? Thanks, Kelly
Why is it here? There seem to be lots and lots of refs in this article? Anchoress 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The first section of the article, "Biology," is pretty well referenced, but the other two major sections, "Infestations" and "Treatment," have almost no references. I'll review the references for the first section ("Biology"), then move the Refs tag to the two sections to which it applies. --Tom Allen 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Importance Masked hunters do not feed on human blood. However, they are capable of inflicting painful bites as a defensive reaction if they are disturbed or carelessly handled. The bite feels like a bee sting followed by numbness and swelling. Rarely does a masked hunter bite require medical attention. Masked hunters do not transmit any disease.
Bedbug Pathogens : How safe are we?
I am very keen on finding out what pathogens (disease causing germs) bedbugs are known to carry. Some sources have cited that bedbugs are known to carry 24 pathogens. Can getting blood of bedbugs on your body or hands when you accidentally kill them cause spread of diseases? There is very little information of discussion of this subject. Those of you who are interested or concerned about this please share your experiences. I am basically very concerned. How can an organism that is now becoming so prevalent in North America and is known to carry 20 to 30 pathogens not be spreading disease? Can we assume they are not (speading disease) or is it that we don't yet know how they are spreading disease? Research is needed in this area and if people like you and me share our experiences and update wikipedia perhaps we can get experts to offer their comments or spark off research?
Links for your review: http://studenttravel.about.com/od/healthystudentholidays/a/bedbugs_2.htm http://news.ufl.edu/2001/07/24/bedbug/ http://health.state.ga.us/healthtopics/mme/012604.asp http://www.shef.ac.uk/aps/contacts/acadstaff/siva-jothy.html http://www.bed-bug.org/bed-bugs-health-risks/
Further thoughts: Can bed bugs carry HPV (Human Papilloma Virus)? As you may know there are almost 30 types of this virus. Some cause genital warts. Some can even cause Common warts or Plantar warts claim some sources.
Rajeevy74 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Rajeev Y
Ultrasonic Device: Does it work?
To the question of using an ultrasonic device to repel bedbugs, professionals say "It's too good to be true." Yes, those plug-in type ultrasonic devices are known to repel redents and some kind of bugs, but not specially for bedbugs. However, I tested it out. After two days of keeping an untrasonic turned on, this morning, two bedbugs actually came out on the floor, waiting to be killed; this has never happened so far. They were hiding in some place I never know as if they have a sophisticated intelligent system. I can't say anything about the causal relationships between the bedbug's behavior and the device. But, I just want to know what's found and what can be found about the effect of an ultrasonic device.
22.214.171.124 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Chang from NY
professional does not mean chemicals
I disagree with the mixture of the terms professional and chemical! There are a number of other treatments, e.g. chemical treatments are mostly anywhere forbidden outside the US cause of health issues. The most promising technologies are heat and microwaves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Removal of External LInks by User:Ohnoitsjamie
I'm creating a section here for the discussion of User:Ohnoitsjamie's repeated removal of external links to bedbug information websites. It appears to be his belief that they are spam and that WP:EXT prohibits blogs. It's my position (i) that the websites are useful, (ii) that they add a significant degree of quality and usefulness to the article, (iii) that I have individually looked at the commercial websites and determined that they are strictly factual in nature and do not, as of my last examination, heavily (or, even, really, minorly) advertise their hosting PCO, and thus are not spam, (iv) that the blogs add a significant degree of quality to the article, especially such 'blogs' (that are not really personal blogs in nature) as Bedbugger, and (v) that, while not meaning to personally attack the user in question, one of his primary focii on Wikipedia seems to be going around and strictly and without latitude applying WP:EXT, and that this may lead to a certain degree of inflexibility in interpretation of WP:EXT which does not match Wikipedia's larger-scale policies.
My counterposition is as follows: WP:EXT, the page he cites, is a guideline; "guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (WP:POL). It makes no common sense to remove useful, factual, nonbiased websites — websites which I and others have vetted for objectivity — that provide useful information on the article's subject. By removing the weblogs and the non-spam information provided by commercial websites (has he even visited each of these external links before determining they violate policy?), he is lowering the article's quality. I oppose that.
Corollary supporting references are WP:POINT — which suggests that discussion is better than disruptive action — WP:CON, which decries unilateral action without consensus amongst those working on an article's quality — and WP:IAR, the catch-all which says that the Wikipedia's improvement is more important than regulations. — Whedonette (ping) 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see where WP:POINT or WP:CON have been violated. I wasn't aware of a consensus agreement that personal blogs (most of which have ads) was appropriate for this page. I maintain that this article still had plenty of useful links after I pruned out the blogs and commercial sites, as per WP:NOT (not a directory), and WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Quoting from the latter: Links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound as if I am attacking you, but I can't figure out a way to phrase this in a polite manner. With regards to WP:POINT violation, I do think that cutting a wide swath across Wikipedia forcing a strict interpretation of WP:EXT on each article you visit is indeed disruptive to Wikipedia's improvement. Although there are obviously egregious examples of editors entirely shirking the WP:EXT guidelines, I'm sure, one of the more common behaviors of editors is to find a few articles in an area they know about and try to improve them (while recognizing that they don't own them, yes). I understand Wikipedia policies; so do others here. I'm not saying those editors who have worked on this article own it, but I'm saying that I think — with all due respect — that those who have "adopted" the upkeep and maintenance of this article (and that's where WP:CON comes in — both through the edits themselves and the "silent agreement" WP:CON refers to by a lack of prior reversions) ... that those people took longer than you did to examine and weigh the external links that now remain in that section for their value to the article. I'm aware of what WP:EXT says; that's why I indicated in my response that it was a guideline, not a policy, meaning that latitude is there for the betterment of an article, a position WP:IAR does support. So I'd ask you to leave the external links section as it is; the removal of those links worsens the article, in my opinion, because those are useful sources of information, and WP:IAR does suggest quality, in the end, is important than adhering to the finer points of regulations. — Whedonette (ping) 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I Fully support Ohnoitsjamie see WP:EL WP:SPAM and WP:NOT get rid of the blogs and other link cruft Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad you feel this way, but you have no history of editing on this article and appear to be a fellow admin coming from Ohnoitsjamie's post soliciting commentary from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. The entire point is not to vote-stuff this discussion, it's that people who have been working on this article as one of their areas of focus on Wikipedia have made a different call than you guys when it comes to the guideline, and with all due respect, please respect that and stop trying to force your opinion on this article. — Whedonette (ping) 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Lovely. And in the meantime, while I try to talk this out, it gets reverted back to Jamie's version — and now if I do anything, I get WP:3RR and get blocked. Very nicely played. — Whedonette (ping) 02:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much. That's the entire purpose of 3RR, so that the cabal can oppress users. Veinor (talk to me) 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, at least be gracious about it, Veinor: you won. It certainly wasn't consensus, it was what you guys wanted, and you got it, without any attempt at the longer process of actually reaching consensus with the people who actually sit here and edit this article. — Whedonette (ping) 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Another editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam here. I apologize for the appearance of us "outsiders" ganging up on you, but that is truly not our intent. While most of the editors in our project may not have tremendous experience with bedbugs, we do have a great deal of experience evaluating external links and whether or not they are appropriate. Often, one of our editors who is having a dispute will post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam asking for a second opinion to make sure they are doing the right thing. Sometimes we disagree and say "the link is okay, leave it"; other times we agree and help enforce the guideline. We don't just blindly support the link removal. So there certainly is not any "anti-spam cabal", but I'm sorry if you found Veinor's sarcasm off-putting.
- In this case here, I have also looked at the bedbugger.com website and concur that it does not meet the inclusion requirements of WP:External links. As far as consensus goes, you appear to be the only editor of this article that favors its inclusion (and many times we have backed down from deleting even an obviously inappropriate link if there is consensus among article editors to keep it).
- Anyway, I'm not here to kick you when you're down. I really am sorry you feel like we are gaming the system, so to speak, but OhNoitsJamie made a good call on this one. Please don't take it personally. -- Satori Son 14:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, at least be gracious about it, Veinor: you won. It certainly wasn't consensus, it was what you guys wanted, and you got it, without any attempt at the longer process of actually reaching consensus with the people who actually sit here and edit this article. — Whedonette (ping) 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A minor but important point. Bed bug is written as two words.
All of the true bugs are written as two words: plant bug, stink bug, bed bug, lace bug, etc. All of the false bugs are written as one word: mealybug is an example. This method also helps identify "bugs" that are not true bugs, such as ladybug (really a beetle). I know that most entomologists now place the false and true bugs in Hemiptera. but the common name difference between the bugs still exists. It is "bed bug." Most people adding to this article probably already know this, or should.
In any case, don't just take my word for it, the Entomological Society of America's Committee on Common Names has this species listed as "beg bug," and has had it that way since I took my first entomology course in the mid-70s. - Thomas Fasulo, extension entomologist, University of Florida Trfasulo 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Use of K9's to detect bed bug infestations
The best surveillance approach that ever has been developed for the early detection of bed bugs is the Bed Bug Dog. The K9 can detect the presence of specimens before there are any bites or visible signs.
I tried to add a reference to this fact a while back, but it was edited out of the article.
The term BedBugDog is a trademark of Florida K9 Academy. Bill Whitstine was the first known trainer.
Could someone please provide some guidance as to how the use of Bed Bug Detection K9s can be added to the article. This is a major advance in the control of infestations & the public deserves to know about this approach.
Last December I assisted with a presentation about the use of K9s at the ESA conference in Indianapolis. The presentation was entitled BedBugDogs: A New Application of a Proven Technology. the presentation was part of the New Advances in Urban Entromology section of the program. The Entomological Society of America (ESA) is the largest group of insect researchers in North America. K9 assisted inspection is much faster & more accurate than a human inspector.
The University of Florida is currently conducting research to evaluate the use of K9s for bed bug detection. The use of K9s has a solid scientific basis.
Another researcher at the same conference presented research that demonstrated that bed bugs are becoming highly resistant to the registered pesticides that are available in the US. This information should also be included in the article.
I am a K9 handler that was trained by FCA and I have an obvious bias.
There are several trainers that are now following Bill Whitstine's lead in training dogs for this task. I think Bill deserves a mention for being the originator of this approach, but the use of K9s really should be included even if there is no mention of Bill contribution to the industry. Bill was also the first trainer to train termite dogs.
I do not understand the editing process.
How can this information be added?
I can be reached at email@example.com
GA nomination: quick-failed
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have decided to quick-fail the article at this time for several reasons:
- Expand the lead, as it currently does not adequately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD).
- In the biology section, "common bedbug" doesn't need to have bold text, just the name of the article in the first sentence of the intro.
- The article is undersourced for the amount of information that is present. More inline citations need to be added for any statements that may be questioned over their verifiability. Right now, there is a reference tag in "Detection of infestations" and also a "citation needed" tags. Those would be a good place to start addressing the sourcing, and also look to other statements that readers may question.
- "Veterinarians may mistake bedbugs' leavings on a pet's fur as "flea dirt"." Either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph; single sentences shouldn't stand alone.
- The current 10th inline citation needs to be better formatted rather than just showing  in the References section.
Once you have addressed these issues and have looked over the GA criteria, consider renominating the article again. If you disagree with this review, you can ask for another review at Good article review. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Keep working on the article and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Nehrams2020 forgot to remove the article from the list at WP:GAC, so I also reviewed the article today. There's no reason for me to rehash everything he has already stated, as I pretty much agree with his assessment. As an additional note, there's also a large number of external links in the 'external links' section at the end of the article; these could be trimmed a bit to remove any linkspam and/or non-notable links. It would help editors to review WP:EL for guidelines on external links in articles. Also, several of the journal articles linked here could probably also be used as references to cite information within the article itself. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There is at least 1 effective treatment in use!
The main page states "there are no effective treaments in use" I find this to be a gross overstatement. There are safe insecticides that work against the bedbugs very nature to effectively and consistantly kill them. Most "treatment" methods target actually seeking out hiding places, finding and then killing the bedbugs. (i.e. steam, direct contact sprays) Bed bugs have had thousands of years of evolution to avoid just that! Their weakness is that they have to eat in order to grow, and they can't mate until they have reached maturity. This insecticide works against that weakness. It's simple, easy, doesn't require that you throw anything away or spend hours preparing. There is only 1 product, it's inexpensive and it actually works! It's only downside is that it takes quite some time to fully eradicate the infestation. It's all explained at this link. http://www.diatect.com/kill-bed-bugs.php. I don't know how acurate all their information is but the pure mechanics of how it works is foolproof. So please reconsider the statement "no effective treatment". Treehugger779 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've found conflicting information about what, if anything, is effective against bedbugs.
- On one hand, Google finds many web sites with information about chemical insecticides which are labeled for use against bedbugs. Here are three examples; the first is from the New Mexico State University College of Agriculture:   . (I notice that several of the listed products have ingredients that are similar to the "99% natural" product that Treehugger779 recommends.) So, even without DDT, bedbug eradication appears to be possible.
- On the other hand, here's an article which reports that, according to a pest control expert, "We just don't really have anything in our arsenal that's effective against bedbugs anymore." .
- All in all, this appears to be one of those problems for which DDT really should be used. It is a shame that politics (rather than science) prevents the use of DDT against bedbugs (though its use against malarial mosquitoes is obviously much more important). NCdave 06:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There are four pictures of bedbugs in the article, but none of the bites they leave. Surely one of the images could be replaced with a bite picture. I ask because I've heard they are rather unique-looking purple dots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a bedbug infestation in my house for about 6 months. The main way of detecting that there were still there (even more so than the presence of bites) was by their faecal marks on the bed sheets. These always appeared as dark gray diamond-shaped marks for some reason. There is nothing about this in the main article. If you ever find marks like this on your bedding call pest control straight away - it confused me for a long time and by the time I saw the first bed bug (and realised what it was) I had left it too long! Does anyone know why these marks always took a diamond shape?
It took the pest controller about 5 visits to eradicate the infestation. He tried fumigation, spraying, and smoke. The only thing that proved effective was the spray. I can't remember what chemical it was (I think it was the same chemical used to control flea infestations), but every time it was sprayed on the carpet there were hundreds of dead bed bugs on the carpet over the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
X_x yeah, I thought it was just my blood once but it looked way too dark and yes it was diamond shape. O_o why do they choose the pillows to poop on most of the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please describe the mortality conditions as they relate to temperature? I was told that cold killls the little stinkers. If you live in a cold place, you can open the doors and winows, turn off the central heat and wait four hours for the tempertautre to fall to at least -10c to freeze them to death. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I just viewed an article on BBC1 TV ( half an hour ago ) about the growth of bed bug infestations in London . In the article a pest control officer claimed that the use of insectiticides alone was no longer an effective method to control bed bugs as they had developed a resesitance to most if not all insecticides that might be used legally in the UK . He stated that insecticide use in conjunction to freezing bed bugs was the only effective control . All items of clothing and upholstery ( including curtains ) in the effected household had to be deep-freezed for at least 3 days in giant freezers to ensure complete erradication . Unfortunately i don't think he mentioned the exact temperature at which bed bugs must be frozen . It might be possible to view this programme on the BBC website ( www.bbc.com ) if you have read this blog within a month of it's initial writing. The name of the TV programme is "The One Show " . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The second half of the article is devoid of almost any links to other wikipedia pages. I would suggest adding some to relevant supporting articles or word people may find to be confusing--PinDr4gon (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I also have a suggestion for the editors. The section on the bed bug resurgence is speculative. It is unsupported by research and facts. Please take a long view of history in this matter. For example, to suggest that four cases of bed bug infestations in the UK in 1999 alarmed people is to misunderstand the reality of the history of bed bug infestations in the UK. Consult Boase and King and other relevant sources.Hopelessnomo (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of heading off another edit war over the external links, I will state that I have, for the moment, commented out the laundry list of web articles. These links should be converted into references, where appropriate. If the links do not offer any further verification for the article, they ought to be simply removed. This is under the first point at WP:LINKSTOAVOID -- you shouldn't provide a list of links in lieu of properly using references and citing them, nor should you provide links to material that is redundant with the article. Editors wishing to use these web pages as references can still see the list by looking at the article's source. (You might also consider moving the list to this talk page.) I have also updated the placement and frequency of various editing tags. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I really enjoyed the article. I noticed that there was a section explaining what methods were used to treat an infestation of bedbugs, but I did not see anything mentioned about having all of the sheets cleaned in extreme heat to kill of the adults. You would then have to have the sheets cleaned again weeks later to kill any hatching young as well. I think it would be helpful to mention how you can get rid of them through cleaning and steaming. garza_j_e (User talk:garza_j_e|talk]]) —Preceding comment was added at 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Impressive article, i especially like the detection and infestation sections. this was something i wanted to do as a topic as well. i like your images and information content a lot, i feel this could not be made better. good job team.a little wordy for my taste--heartbreaker5785 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There were alot of interesting facts on the feeding hadits of bedbugs. This section was vivdly informative. I find it interseting that bedbugs that feed less have a longer life cycle. Ms.mitch (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Ms.Mitch
I think this article is very insightful and tells a lot of general information about bedbugs that would interest the average reader. The only thing I would do would improve the introduction of your article and maybe summarize the next paragraphs in your intro like any regular introduction. Just don't make it sound too much like a research paper. I think the pictures are a really good asset to the article too. Kt babe8 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)kt_babe8
A lot of text seems to be wikified, yet there are not yet pages created for the text. Perhaps unwikifying it would not confuse readers by falsely telling them that there are links to those particular words. If there is text in red, the linking page should either be in process of being created, or the word should not be wikified. Otherwise, awesome job and great formatting. Csb14 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Great job with the article, one minor thing I might change about the section about Young is that the molts be descibed as instars if that you think that is accurate.Hold323 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was great I like that fact that it was so informative and had a lot of nice pictures . The only thing I might add is more links to so that people who didn't take forensic entomology could be more informed. Cedric14 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Overall I really liked it. The only change could be your title maybe THE bedbug or even it's genus and species. Bedbug is just kind of there. Another thing under history, you stated that the bedbug arrived to America with the early colonists, but you didnt state from where. There were many colonists from many parts of the world so you maybe could be a little more specific there, but otherwise it was extremely informative!! Txshinerblonde (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I had an overwhelming urge to change my sheets after reading this, that should say something :)Extreemly well researched refrenced and the breaking down of the sections helped in the overal l flow of the page. The pictures were nice and relavent and really added to the text of the article. Great job! Thanks and Gig 'Em (DivoTheAggie (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
Really good article- covered all the bases and included any information anyone would want to know anout bedbugs. Pictures were good enhancement of the article. -Lauren
Great article, very informative and well-writen. Probably one of the most in-depth I've read. I liked how you included treatments along with the basic history and description of bed bugs. Besides the missing links in the "infestations" section, the only thing I saw was that some of your links go to non-existant pages. Except for that, though, it's a great article. --Tipitow88 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys! I just read over your bed bug article and it is looking great. I especially like your use of pictorial media and your neat boxes on the right hand side of the page, giving more scientific information on classification. The only advice I might give you is that you might consider doing some research to find a picture that you could use of what a bed bug bite actually looks like. I know I'd be interested to see a picture so that I could tell if I had bed bugs, and I think it could enhance the article by giving it a "WebMD" sort of viewpoint. That, or you could externally link the WebMD page for bed bugs to your page as a helpful link for people looking for more information. The only other observation I had was that the sections on infestation look a little bare as far as internal/external linking goes and citations. (I figure you guys are working on it because it looks like others have made the same comments, but I thought I'd mention it anyways.) Also, some of your comments seem to be a little repetitive, meaning that you may have mentioned it two or three times before going into the section on it to explain it better. I think this could be fixed by simply re-ordering the sections of your paper so you completely explain a topic first and just reference it later on. (I'm refering to your discussion of international travel and its effect on the transmittal and infestations in the US.)
Overall though, this is a fabulous article! Based on your talk page it looks like you guys have some great opportunities to be included in the wiki-arthropods and other interesting features, so keep up the good work! It's looking great! Kayla foster (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That took a while to read, but it was well worth it. Its easily apparent that you guys took the time to research the subject and write a comprehensive article that wasnt as much of a pain to read as it initially seemed. Nice job on keeping the article interesting and i really like the pictures. Azayed34 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Great article, and the only change that I would make is spacing out the article a little bit more. This is applies to the topic about Resurgence of bedbug infestations, it seems very dense and a little overwhelming for the reader. I also want to say that I really liked the Controlling infestations topic it seemed to go above and beyond what we learned in class. So overall great job.Foxracer11373 (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, awesome article very informative! So much infomation on Bedbugs going on, I love it. It really will help out alot of confused people searching for info on them through wikipedia. The only thing I would add is maye a few pictures under the Bites section to show visually what it would look like if a bite were on a person by these bedbugs. Other than that its good. Lebl37 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Good article overall! Can you find a picture of a bed bug bite? I know there was an infestation of them in FHK, remember Adrienne talking about it in class? I'm sure if you ask around some one would have a few pictures. That's kind of weird, but maybe! It's worth a try anyway! Lindseyjean11 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Amazing that the tramsmission is so easy and through international travel is where it is most seen. I have witnessed this when I was stationed overseas. Ironically I was backpacking through Prague and stayed at a hostel where such an infestation occured. The cots were infected and I was luckily on the floor. My buddy was bitten that night and the bite marks were often 2-3 bites in a row across his stomach. The management used bleach and hot water to kill the infestation as well as boil and placed the sheets in a economy size dryer or threw them away.Txdevine1 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is great. Ya’ll covered everything in class and went into further research about the insect. However, there are a lot of terms that are not simplified or linked to another article that would explain them better. The audience that reads these articles range from experts to any child that can use a computer. This article is a great source for the experts at the moment, but thinks about the children that have to interpret this data too. I enjoyed reading this article and hope ya’ll do well. --Sadiezapalac (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Great job! You guys really did your homework, it is very well written, and very informative. The only suggestion I have is to make it follow a more specific order. It seemed a little bit like it jumped around. Just a thought. Good luck!
You guys really did your homework, it is very well written, and very informative. The only suggestion I have is to make it follow a more specific order. It seemed a little bit like it jumped around. Just a thought. Good luck!Mdurrum09 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Great job!
Wow! This article covers everything I ever wanted to know about bedbugs and with all the pictures and what not it looks very professional. Great job guys. The only thing that I could suggest changing would be the order of topics. For example, you might want to put the 'Bites' and 'Disease Transmission' sections right before 'Detection' and 'Controlling infestations' that way you address the problems bed bugs make and then provide solutions to them immediately after. Otherwise, this is a great article!!Sweeypie2305 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In your resurgence of bed bugs infestation paragraph, maybe talk about the bed bug infestation on the A&M campus. I know it was mentioned in class. It would fit in well since the article was written by A&M students.Horsenerd09 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)horsenerd09
this page is great! I can tell that you spent a LOT of time doing the research here. It really shows in the presentation of information :-) I think your page is going to be one of the more widely used by random people just searching the internet trying to find out about bedbugs in general. I think your section that talks about controlling an infestiation is great, and you give people several options of how to deal with the gross little critters! I'm also proud that you highlighted the research that is going on at Texas A&M and our growing entomology department. whoop!! --Brokenice928 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent article! You expanded on all of the different topics, and did a great job finding current research at A&M. I liked that you were able to find ways to detect and get rid of bedbugs other than what we learned in class. Overall, I found this article very interesting...long, but interesting. Great job! Annemarye (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate bedbugs! But i liked the article. I once had a bed bug infestation at my house a long time ago. We fought with them for weeks. If my family had only known then what I konw now...after reading your article. That experience might not have been a memory that I carry with me all the time. Anyway, I thought the article was well put together, and very thought out. Not every one can complete this kind of writting. Good job. DanielIsbell 1205 16April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielisbell (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey good job on your article. I was wondering if someone was going to write about bedbugs ecspecially with the problems they have with them on campus. I wish you would have said something about the problems in the dorms but that didn't take away form your article. I thought that the layout of the article was good and how you sectioned it off. Also I liked that you mentioned how Texas A&M was involved in reasearching bedbugs. Overall good job! Jared Jcdvipertx2000 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Great work on your article! I'm really excited for you guys that you were nominated for an acknowledged article, this writing definitely deserves it. I would just clean up the red words in the article for overall look. Great job! Sasquash128 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought your article had lots of important information concerning bedbugs and was obviously well researched. However, I think there are a few things your group could do to improve this article. On several occasions, I thought the article tended to be somewhat repetitive and some sentences could use restructuring. An example is the first sentence in your the "Current Research" section. Also, I feel the "History" section could be reorganized in order to improve the flow. Perhaps, you could use subcategories (US versus Europe) to aid your efforts. Finally, I found myself asking (as a curious reader) why dormant bedbugs could live longer than the well fed bedbugs. By correcting these minor things, I think your article will become a stronger candidate for the nominations it has received. Good luck! --Amb8786 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was awesome and very well written. It's very clear that you guys spent a lot of time researching everything. I especially enjoyed the pictures which kept the article interesting and appealing. I would suggest adding more internal reference links in your articles because there were some paragraphs with no references at all. Overall, excellent job! Hando09 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm really tired and this article really kept my attention! It was very interesting and fun to read. I like it because bedbugs are actually something occurring on Texas A&M's campus. Great job guys! I would just suggest that the intro be a little more catching and outline the article better. It is the very first thing you read and should get the reader interested in looking at the rest of the article. Other than that, awesome work! Kjw15 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Great article group twenty five, I feel this was very well written. This page is just blowing up with information. Plenty of pictures and diagrams I especially like the one of the life cycle of the bed bug. Yall must have been doing your homework when yall picked this for your proposal. Good work guys!Jword 09 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Great job guys and girls. I loved the article mostly due to the colors and pictures. this was definately the most colorful article i have read. Also the information was great and too the point. over all yall did a great job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustinray52 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is very well written. Some suggestions would be to expand your history to include a wider aspect of the bed bug history. Also the introduction needs to have a brief summary of the entire article so people can have an idea of what to expect before reading the specifics of the article.--Escaladebball29 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You can tell there was a lot of time put into the article. Well written, informative, but not to where it makes it difficult to read. It moved around a little but probably one of the best articles. Jdritchey4 (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job on the article. I can see how article could be of use to people who are being attacked by bed bugs. The pictures also help out in describing the article.Stogie77 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked this article very much it contained lots of good information. I definitely enjoyed the pics of the bites those were nasty. Lastly, i think it would have been good to include some info about the infestion on the A&M campus and how it was taken care of.Jdpage (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice article and very imformative. The only thing I can suggest is maybe to find a picture of a bedbug bite just to illustrate that as opposed to a flea bite. Mikearq (talk) 7 April 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Flip the history
All I would do differently is either put the history portion first or put it last. I do not think it flows well putting the history in the middle. Try it out and see how it flows.. I don't have much else to say, as far as that goes. All that I think needs work is the flow or the over all article.Lopez stc1 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This article looks great! The pictures are well organized from paragraph to paragraph, and it helps keep the reader interested when they actually have an image to view. You might want to consider moving the "history" to the start of the article, instead of in the middle. It might help with a smoother introduction to your topic. Great job! Laadame (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I really like this article, especially the etail you went into with detection, treatment, and control. I would like to see mention of their resurgance specifically in high-occupancy sleeping areas such as dorms and barracks. The initial sentence of the article (the introduction) should probably include a reference to beds, seeing as that's the context most users will be interested in. Also, there one sentence ("Other research is being conducted at Texas A&M and Virginia Tech to be able to use bed bugs in forensic science") that needs to be re-worded because it doesn't make sense grammatically. Very nice job overall.Jablan1 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Jablan1
This article is very good. I can say that it has been one of the best that I've read thus far. I love the fact that you guys went ahead and gave a slight insight of the bed bug history and how they have evolved. The pictures are great and help convey your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgo87 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Overall, really great job and very detailed. There are alot of things you could link though to other wiki pages like London borough, some of the countries...Great information on the Resugence of bedbug infestations but a little overwhelming maybe break it up with a travel and pesticide headings since those were your two main focuses. Looks good. Mcgi133 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The article was really good! There is a lot of examples and information on everything. I would say ya'll have covered your topic pretty well, with good pictures. I bet ya'll could probably be the featured article, its the best one I've read! Good job. (Medillar (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Compliment and Complaint!
This article was very education and very well written, BUT.... It contained the word "bedbug" 102 times. I got real tired of reading that word, so my advice would be to throw in the scientific name throughout the page to keep it from being so repetitive with the "bedbug" word. But overall great paper with great info in the text. I like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcarriker5 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I enjoyed the article. Most of it was well written, but the section on "young" and "history" are choppy and need to be streamlined a bit. Also, consider adding more links to those sections. A wonderful addition to wikipedia! Antarcticgecko (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This article says that bedbugs were eliminated using DDT. But the article on DDT says that DDT doesn't affect bedbugs, it only 'excites' them. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, they're back to Israel as well.
I don't know how to add a citation: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1005065.html I'll appreciate it if someone who knows adds it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- The history section needs a lead in and background. Historically where did bedbugs originate? If they were introduced to North America in the last couple of centuries there is a lot more history and this should be the lead in.
- Question - travel tips section is interesting but is it encyclopedic?
- Make your mind up! Bed bug or bedbug? I've standardised it to use bedbug, the article title.--Alex Marshall (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The bed bug is a true bug (a suborder of Hemiptera) and the name is therefore written as two words. And that is the way it is listed in the Entomological Society of America's listing of common names. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Conflict on the relationship with DDT: In this article, it says that "Bedbugs had nearly been eradicated by the widespread use of potent insecticides such as DDT." In the DDT article, it says "DDT spraying ... does not kill cockroaches or bedbugs" and the claim in this article is described as a DDT myth on its Discussion page. Although I personally find it difficult to believe that this particular insect is not affected by DDT other than it "excites such pests making them more active", the DDT article does cite a number of references to support that statement. Regardless, one of the two articles, either this one or the DDT one, is outright wrong because they (or their cited sources) are in direct conflict. I don't have the knowledge or the references to resolve which is accurate. Xblkx (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A report on National Public Radio in the US today, mentioned the resurgence of bedbugs in some areas of the US, with furniture being left on the curb, outside apartments, marked "bedbugs - do not use" or words to that effect.
My father, who was born in Washington state in 1920, used to tell us kids at bed time, "Nighty-night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite!", although that was a empty colloquialism by the 1950's and 1960's. Sad to hear of Bedbugs coming back, although the tenting of homes and heating to high temperature treatments might be useful in warmer climates, killing the termites at the same time. WonderWheeler (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- The saying Night night, sleep tight don't let the bedbugs bite actually I understand comes from Elizabethan (I) England. At this time beds did not use wooden slats, instead the matress was held up by a series of ropes. This ropes began to sag down to the floor after use and could be tightened by toggles on the side. The saying was a reminder to tighten the ropes up to prevent the matress touching the floor where more bedbugs lay. --Alex Marshall (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it is generally held that the above is an urban legend. As far as I am aware, "tight" here means without interruption. http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwordorigins/tight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Universities commented out?
I noticed while editing "External links" that a section that links to University materials was commented out. Was this intended? Or did someone goof? I would think that this section should be made available, unlike some of the other links that are displayed. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Content all mixed up
I copied this article to Appropedia:Bedbugs, and have done a lot of culling and adding (to reflect that Appropedia's focus is on the practical side, and has different criteria).
I noticed that there is a lot of related content spread between sections. One example is the use of sniffer dogs, mentioned in two places. Another is the global resurgence, talked about in its own section as well as the history section.
If I'd realized this earlier, I would have rearranged first, and copied to Appropedia later. As it is, I've made too many changes at the Appropedia article (to links, and removing references and templates) to copy content back. But still, I have put in some work there in ordering it, and it may be a helpful reference. Just ignore the emphasis on tips and solutions which go beyond what is suitable for Wikipedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the article describes the whole Cimicidae family and not just the commonly recognized bedbugs, the taxonomic breakdown to genera and species is probably wrong (besides being unreferenced). According to the book Schuh R.T. & Slater (1995): True bugs of the world. Cornell University Press, the family coprises of 6 subfamilies, with 75 species in total, not just 9. It would be good if the author of the taxobox revealed his source so we could compare. Another thing, Cimicidae were described by Latreille, not Kirkaldy (according to ITIS). --Yerpo (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"How to" Concerns
There are several pieces to this article that have been noted as being "instructional/teaching". I suggest simply removing the offending phrases (e.g., "how to") and leave as is or slightly edit the remaining information to maintain the WP focus on providing information not specifically instruction/advice. Please help to rewrite portions of this article to remove the "How to, "do-it-yourself" aspect of the article while preserving the valuable information regarding eradication of the bedbug. Jemusser (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
First paragraph needs to be fixed
No point arguing about scientific content when the first paragraph reads like a third grade book report. I added the word 'insect' to get things started. It needs grammatical correction for the sentence fragment and general disorganization. Anybody been to college? Want to take on the job? Okay, that's all I want to say. You can skip the next paragraph, it's a rant about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia really needs editors. There are already lots of brilliant experts in math and science and every other subject, but the articles are poorly written. Wiki needs people who studied English or Journalism at school to go in and fix the articles just to make them read properly. Check the article on Texas Hold'em for a good example. I'm willing to systematically rant about it all day if anyone would like some more info. Thanks.
I'm not here that often but would suggest one way of getting the information you would like is to simply ask the question.If questions are listed I could give me my opionion when back on here. Edit this how you like English isn't my strong point but dont amend the pesticide names.
Currently i still work in the entomology/pest control field & have about 25 years of practical experience in identifying & treating bed bugs in the UK
The best insecticide we had was Chlorpyrifos( trade name in the Uk Empire 20) which became unavailable in the U.K about 6 months ago, mainly due to the harmonisation of UK law, European law and subsequent costs to the pesticide manufacturer to re-submit safety data. We were worried that the removal of Chlopyrifos was going to help support bed bug infestations which have already seen quite dramatic increase ref Pest Control New October 2007 ( I was a contributor to the article)
I can tell you from experience that in London about 25 years ago i would be involved in a bed bug job about every six months. Sometimes i am doing a few treatments a week !
Alternative pesticides are not as quick but for a professional the main criteria is complete eradication of the pest from a dwelling , so time is not necessarily an issue. generally you would be looking at 6-12 weeks to an infestation to a "visible eradication" .Some of the new pesticides contain pyriproxyfen which is an insect development blocker, disrupting Chitin production in the insect.
Someone mentioned silica dust -yes suppliers to the trade quote that it has had some success. However it would be very messy to carry out a treatment with that type of material. ref myself : A.R.brookes BSc(Biol), FRES Currently Exor approved & member of NPTA user andybrookestar cheers for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybrookestar (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Fixed" first paragraph
Change 'A' to 'The'. Rearranged it for grammar. Added a line explaining why it's called a bedbug. Having a conversation with myself right now.
Bed Bugs, My Infestation.
My name is Peter i am a computer technician, not an antimologist, i am on disability, so my budjet is limited, i have a bed bug infestation, i had my appartment sprayed without much results, i sleep with the lights on so they don't know if i am awake or not or what time of day it is so they canot use the cloak of darkness to hide or an indication of if i am to bed to sleep or to just lay around thinking or reading, also i have noticed that they do kump from higher places onto their intended victime's bed, i use the sound as an indication of their arrival, they hide in the fitted sheet after the have fallen onto my bed, and then i catch and crush them, i do not know where they hide or reproduce beforehand, and i now sleep with tight fitting clothes to minimize the attacks, i kill several every night except when i am realy tired which is rare, but i am still infested even if i keep the population down, i was looking foe more information about my "enemys" so that i may eradicate them, but my best technique yet is to catch them in the act and crushing them while giving them the least amount of chances to feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Leave the US!!! I've lived in France and in Switzerland, and I had never heard there of any bedbugs problems. It seems however very common in the US. Then again, in the US, people spray their fabric with crap like Febreeze instead of actually cleaning the fabric. To an American, what smells good is clean. No wonder you guys get so many such problems... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The section on New York mentions a number of "violations". This suggests that bed bugs are monitored by the city, and maybe there are laws against living in bedbug-ridden buildings. Is this the case? What laws, if any, relate to bedbugs? --22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Which insecticides are effective?
This article has everything except the names of effective insecticides. Is this a deliberate omission, or do we simply not know how to kill the little pests? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've been reading that fresh-water diatomaceous earth (silicate dust from algae fossils), especially if mixed with small percentages of pesticides, show good promise. It works by drying out the insects when the come into contact with it. It may also damage the insects mechanically, by crystals being lodged inside waxy joints of the exo sceleton, thus ripping it up. DE is mostly harmless to humans, but it's adviced to use a face mask as the dust may get into the lungs and cause irritation, and in the long rund, silicosis. The downside is that it's proved excessively hard to find where I live here in Norway, Europe, and I don't know if it's possible to import US products. I do wonder, however, might Fuller's Earth also work? It's also a dessicant, so I see no reason why it shouldn't. --Kebman (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a list of active ingredients in bed bug pesticides, Pyrethrin seem to be most common--voodoom (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- diatomaceous earth
- ground limestone
- silica + pyrethrum dust
Deltamethrin: is the only one that works (JT Eaton)bluelable water based has no smell I used it 2x and were gone. all the others dont work. tips: spray around wall baseboard carpet then ceal up any cracks in walls near the floor;where the wall meets the floor with cauking; get rid of the matres once inside cant get rid of them. caution: use glovs; mask; eye cover.this stuff is very unhealthy. Deltamethrin is illeagal in some states of the U.S. because of enviormental reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)