Talk:Bed bug/Archive 1 - Misplaced Pages

< Talk:Bed bug

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 16 November 2007 (Signing comment by 87.194.197.36 - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:20, 16 November 2007 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 87.194.197.36 - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Bed bug/Archive 1 was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Arthropods NA‑class

	Arthropods portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Software: Computing NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.

"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 76.10.154.113 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, 76.10.154.113. 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 141.154.245.193.. 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.69.86.138.163 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Prior Discussion

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 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 01:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The text has been removed. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 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.

I would hardly think it safe to recommend that individuals mix kerosene with a generically named "insect poison." — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is very late indeed, but I seem to recall that mixing kerosene and mothballs is one way of making napalm! Vashti 09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Fumigation has provably no effect on bedbugs. Exterminators with bedbug removal experience have specifically stated that fumigation is ineffective. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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 69.222.72.34 (talk • contribs) 12:28, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

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 69.222.72.34 (talk • contribs) 12:34, November 21, 2005 (UTC)

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.

Correct, but incorporated elsewhere in the article. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Possibly true (and possibly not) about the insecticide/kid point, but it is highly doubtful whether bedbugs can be controlled without insecticides. Unsourced speculation doesn't belong in the article. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

True, but not useful for removal, just for assisting in survival. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

No, it won't, as bedbugs can hide in a multitude of places other than a mattress and locations within a bedroom able to be vacuumed. One cannot vacuum *inside* the baseboards, for example. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed text: Carpeting should be replaced.

No, carpeting doesn't need to be replaced, if things are treated properly. Hardwood floors in a location do make it easier to treat, though. — WCityMike 00:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

9/9/05 Contribution/Restructuring

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 Misplaced Pages'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 16:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know how much blood they consume in comparison to their unfilled body weight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finog (talk • contribs) 23:49, January 18, 2006 (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 24.63.25.193 (talk • contribs) 22:04, January 23, 2006 (UTC)

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)

1/25/06 Cleanup

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 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation

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)

2/14/06 Cleanup

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 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. Misplaced Pages'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 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 61.68.64.180/210.10.141.164. 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 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)

Yes. Found it numerous times during initial research. — WCityMike 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

4/08/06 Eggs

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

6 days read at: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.000533?cookieSet=1

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 165.91.48.81 (talk • contribs) 17:23, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

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 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 207.61.84.162'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)

Below is a message I left on their talk page that'll fill you in. — 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 Misplaced Pages.

This time, I'm trying to incorporate your changes but get them more towards a neutral point of view, which is the tone that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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...

best wishes Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entoman (talk • contribs)

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 67.160.212.7 (talk • contribs)

I think he purposefully used "obfuscate" to make his point. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, don't worry about asking permission, just feel free to go ahead and fix them! — WCityMike ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken photo link

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

Refs tag

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)

Uncited Source

http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/e608maskedhunter.html

"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.

162.93.199.1 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 84.56.223.52 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages forcing a strict interpretation of WP:EXT on each article you visit is indeed disruptive to Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I fully support them as well; remember to assume good faith on Betacommand as well. I know for a fact he didn't come from that discussion. And remember not to violate the three-revert rule. Veinor 02:18, 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 bedbugdogs@aol.com

Thanks

Doug Summers MS K9 Handler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.209.68 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Bedbug Pictures

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 68.230.161.164 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Detection

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, 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 87.194.197.36 (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: