Talk:Bed bug/Archive 2

Q
Can someone please add a photo that includes a bedbug and a familiar object like a matchhead? It's difficult to get an idea of the size and scale of these things. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/sep/08/bedbugs-biting-again/?photos  Like this but a more international because many don't know the size of a US Dime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.44.116 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

thebedbugresource link: malware host.
I just removed a link, added questionably as a reference, to "thebedbugresource.com", which redirects a visitor to another site which, not only has a somewhat suspicious URL but (according to Google) hosts malware. – ClockworkSoul 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the page in question? http://thebedbugresource.com/?page_id=50#6 Sean Rollo seems to be a bona fide recognized expert on bedbugs, and thebedbugresource.com doesn't redirect to anything else now, although the URL for that page has apparently been changed.  http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://thebedbugresource.com/?page_id=50 says "No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days." --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion
I revised and cited a reliable source and it was maliciously deleted by Ohnoitsjamie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.57.230 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the comment about blogs not being reliable sources. Some blogs host comments by known professionals in the area who are authorities and those comments are very valuable. a fixation on peer reviewed publications is nonsensical as there are many reliable sources and some of these are blogs. Anecdotal information is also useful if it describes specific situations that are certainly possible even if not in a peer reviewed publication. HYou don't have to be NY Times or JAMA to know what you are talking about. Sometimes these "reliable sources" can be downright ignorant if they have not checked the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.33.120 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a guideline on reliable sources that defines the term as it is used here. Blogs almost never qualify. - MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes scientific articles are required for scientific facts. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS says, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This seems to perfectly fit the case of a published entomologist posting on a blog, provided that the person's identity is clearly established. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cannot develop a resistance
The text "...diatomaceous earth as an environmentally friendly non-toxic insecticide to which the bedbugs cannot develop a resistance" cannot be correct. Of course they can develop a resistance to this! All that needs to happen is that a partly ineffective treatment allows the stronger to survive and breed and thus produce offspring that will tend to be more resistant than the previous population. Repeating this over many generations would produce resistance. I think the sentence should be limited to "...diatomaceous earth as an environmentally friendly non-toxic insecticide". But finally, I think this also needs a citation. Mgwalker (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand the mechanism for DE, bed bugs would have to evolve into something other than an insect in order to evolve resistance. Technically, you're correct, if there are enough generations.  However, that might be thousands of years in this case.  Yakushima (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

the possibility of some resistance to DE or silica gel is not the usual resistance either at cellular or behavioural levels, but there have been reports of resistant bed bugs actuallhy having thicker exoskeletons which could confer some potential resistance to DE or SG, but so far no researcher has ever reported a strain that survives DE or SG, though there may be some differences... both SG and DE act in a mechanical fashion, though some formulations do have pyrethrins in the material which help to kill by the contact the dusts enable.173.206.33.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Bleach?
Neither of these approaches is a good idea. Bleach is very irritating and has very little if any residual action.. Baking soda is useless. for self help, there are a lot of other things you can do.. vacuuming, steam treatment, (some steamers are very reasonable in price.. handhelds are USELESS. ) DE used carefully in outlets and cracks and crevices, not as a dust everywhere.. not good for anyone.. buy some leg protectors and matress and box spring encasements, and get a good professional firm to do the heavy duty stuff.. 173.206.33.120 (talk) I wonder if spraying Clorox on infested areas will kill them. Anyone try it? I'm going to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.253.21 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 April 2010
 * I'm using the chemical opposite: baking soda.;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fact and citation check
(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section
More references are needed here for general background. Some suggestions are the following:


 * http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/bedbugs/
 * http://www.medicinenet.com/bed_bugs/article.htm

Verification of the current public health threat is needed. For example, see: Goddard J, DeShazo R "Bed bugs (Cimex lectularius) and clinical consequences of their bites" JAMA 2009; 301: 1358-1366.

The photo on “traumatic insemination” seems odd.

Biology
The section Names, under the heading Bites, would fit better in this section.
 * Moved to intro and abbreviated. "History" (specific to English-speaking countries) might be a better section, though. Yakushima (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

More general references are needed. References 6 and 7 seem like primary references and should be replaced. Reference 7 is broken.

Under feeding habits, general references are needed. See: http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/Indoor_pest/bed_bug.htm

http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/publichealth/insects/bedbug.html

Certain numerical facts need to be verified. Some of these can be found in the general references noted above.

Bites
More references are needed here as well. See: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1088931-overview

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/slideshow-bedbugs

Part of this section reads like guesses as to why bed bug bites look a certain way, without any supporting citations.

Statistics are also given with no supporting references.

Besides the above references already provided, these also talk about treatments for bed bug bites:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bedbugs/DS00663/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1088931-treatment

Heat as a treatment is discussed with speculation and no supporting references. This does not add anything to the article as provided.

The statement: Therefore bedbugs are less dangerous than some more common insects such as the flea. Is subjective and not worthy of inclusion here.
 * Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the section on Names should be moved up to the Biology section.
 * Moved to intro, but History might be better. Yakushima (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

History
The section on Names is redundant.
 * Done. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

More references are needed. Some sentences again seem speculative and only opinion without proper citation. (e.g., Bedbugs thrive in places with high occupancy, such as hotels). Eliminated Yakushima (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

More statistics without proper citation in this section.

Under Global resurgence, it would be interesting to have a brief summary on the EPA’s National Bed Bug Summit from 2009.

Reference 32 is in Hebrew. Eliminated. Yakushima (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Infestations
More general references are needed here as well. See: http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2105.html

How to disinfect needs verification.

The sentence: The result of a recurrent bedbug infestation can prove dispiriting, disheartening, demoralizing, and even depressing to households that may have already gone great lengths (in expense, labor, treatment, containment measures, lost furniture, etc.) to try and contain an infestation. is an opinion and should be removed.
 * Done. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics provided here have no supporting citations (numbers of bedbugs and infestations, etc.).

Bed bug nesting sites are discussed at length, but with NO citations at all.

The invertebrate zoology of these insects needs to be formally referenced.

Discussion of bite patterns is redundant with what was discussed above in the section on Bites.

Control and elimination
I agree that there is too much opinion in this section that should be made more general and citations provided.

The section ===Domestic treatment=== could go under ===Control and elimination===.

Sanitizing procedures and other strategies for control, barriers, and elimination need to be verified.


 * Section removed until WP:NOTHOW better understood by contributors. Yakushima (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Measures for travel
This section is obvious and all the points have really been mentioned at one point or another in the rest of the text.
 * Done. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Current research
Questionable original research here, at least in one instance: Szalanski, Allen L., James W. Austin, Jackie A. McKern, C. Dayton Steelman, and Roger E. Gold. 2008.Mitochondrial and Ribosomal Internal Transcribed Spacer 1 Diversity of Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 45(2): 229–236.
 * Done. Eliminated per Weight.--Garrondo (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Total elimination (rather than trimming) seems excessive here. And I'm not sure I understand the objection anway.  Was the content a WP:NOR violation per se?  Or was it that the research cited was questionable?  (I.e., that Journal of Medical Entomology is somehow not RS?)  I'm always concerned whenever wholesale deletion takes RS citations with it, considering the amount of work citations require (and how poorly referenced many WP articles are.) Yakushima (talk)

BSW BV (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

After review
I have eliminated the guide on travelling: As exposed by the reviewer it was quite obvious, most info was already in article and was quite unencyclopedic. Additionally it was completely written as a "how to guide.

In addition I have eliminated the "current research section": It was more than 4 paragraphs on how 2 US universities study bugs. I am quite sure that there are many, many, many biologists studying bugs along the world so this was simply to give undue weight to a non notable study. If current research is going to be talked about lests find a secondary, high-quality source that talks about how the study of bugs is interesting for the world.

I have eliminated the New York section per excessive American bias (only city that is talked about). At most it should be summarized and integrated into the US paragraph. Since it did not have any citations I leave it here for future integration. ''New York City has experienced increased cases of bedbug infestations since the early 2000s, with some reported in hotels, schools, and hospitals. In 2004, New York City had 377 bedbug violations. However, in the five-month span from July to November 2005, 449 violations were reported in the city, an increase in infestations over a short period of time. Some domestic cases have escalated to extreme levels, causing residents to label the infestations "house herpes". Exterminators and entomologists blame the infestations on the fact that so many international travelers visit New York City each day.''

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Current Research", I agree with the basic point: too much weight on work at only three labs, not enough for a wide-angle view. However, coming up with good citations and usable images takes work -- maybe it's best if we preserve these here on the talk page, with summaries, for use in other sections or in a revived Current Research?


 * [File:Cimex-lectularius--bedbug--mouth.jpg|thumb|200px|Scanning electron micrograph shot of the mouth of a bedbug, Cimex lectularius]]


 * ... Researchers suspect that resistant populations of bedbugs have slowly been propagating in poultry facilities, and have made their way back to human hosts via the poultry workers.


 * (WP:NOR violation?) ... bedbugs could potentially provide crucial evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene. Researchers are able to identify what hosts are being fed upon, and are taking further steps to be able to identify the individual by genotyping, and to predict the duration from the time of feeding to recovery of viable DNA.

14:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree and I looked and found no secondary sources. Really we should not mention it at all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A "scientific" source is not required here. See Identifying reliable sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is what is required. As mentioned, popular press is notoriously unreliable for reporting on scientific study results.  Do you have a reliable secondary source in mind?    20:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have dozens of reliable sources on this topic. We do not need to use small primarily primary research papers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)