Talk:Depopulation of cockroaches in post-Soviet states

Urban Myth?
Either this is an "urban myth" and untrue or it is an actual occurrence requiring "possible explanations," but the article should not involve both. Since there seem to be a veritable plethora of sources, I'm removing all references to its "urban myth" status pending new scientific sources that show the popular impression was mistaken and the disappearance was somehow a hoax or an urban legend. -LlywelynII (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Delete
OK guys, I knew this would be nominated for deletion. Let me clarify some points:
 * Yes, it was me who wrote the Russian version of the article, too, and I do not conceal that - I edit ru.wiki under my real name, just like here.
 * No, this is not a hoax.
 * I inserted so many sources on purpose because I knew it would be considered a hoax.
 * The problem is really widely discussed in the media and on the Internet — just look how many results Google returns just for one query, «исчезновение тараканов» (disappearance of cockroaches). This is attracting attention for many years already. It really is notable.
 * Sources such as ntv.ru, rian.ru, ria-sibir.ru, newsru.com are major reliable news agencies/websites.
 * This is not original research. There is no single word invented by me — just what was written in the sources.
 * I understand this is a problem that most of the links are in Russian, but you can use translate.google.com to get the main idea of the text.
 * Otherwise, at least read the article in Moscow Times which is a respected edition as well. Does it not prove this is a hoax.

Thanks for your attention. Please write your objections below. I also suggest to replace the deletion template and vote for deletion, if my points are not convincing enough. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A novel synthesis of source material IS considered original research by Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, news agencies are SECONDARY sources, not primary sources; there are no primary sources (e.g., scientific studies) to back up any of this. As for aspects that are "hoax-like", the inclusion of mobile phone/wireless is precisely the sort of thing that has zero scientific evidence to back it up; there isn't a single reliable source showing that wireless networks kill insects, roaches or otherwise. No one has ever shown that GMO foods kill roaches, either. Wikipedia is not the place to promote urban legends. Let's put it this way: this is an article that could be reduced to a footnote and single link; it does NOT deserve its own article, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Dyanega (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never argued that GM food kills anyone or something. If so many notable websites write about a phenomenon, doesn't it deserve to be mentioned? 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example, are as stupid as cell phones killing cockroaches, however, they do deserve a place on Wikipedia. I mean, Wiki is not for science only. Just look at all these references in some articles to MythBusters or popular culture. As for primary/secondary sources, could you point me to the WP policy regarding this? --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, synthesis of source material IS NOT considered original research in Wikipedia policies unless it serves to advance a position, which it doesn't. Even if so, we could have NPOV-improved this article.
 * If it hasn't earned any discussion in the primary literature, then I don't see how it can be construed as notable in any way. We had a severe drought in California from 2006-2007, which prompted newspaper articles, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. Why? Not because no one wrote about it, but because none of those who wrote about it were reliable primary sources. The bottom line is that the material you have included in this article is an assortment of marginally-connected links which you BUILT an article for; you ARE advancing a position, namely that there is an actual and notable phenomenon that deserves an explanation - a viewpoint which cannot be supported simply by citing newspaper articles. This is not Global warming, this is something that appears to be trivial, and you present no evidence that it is NOT trivial. You cannot even show ONE scientific paper that quantifies a drop in cockroach populations, and in the absence of a legitimate phenomenon, then this article is nothing more than speculation by non-scientists about something which may not even be genuine. There are no reliable sources here, just media-produced hearsay, which I believe is an unacceptable basis for something that claims to be scientific. If you sincerely believe this article deserves to be in Wikipedia, then at the very least it needs to be recategorized among the fringe theories and paranormal; but while theories like Chemtrail conspiracy theory are demonstrably notable, I find it hard to believe that something as vague as this (and unknown outside of the Russian media) qualifies as notable. Dyanega (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "We had a severe drought in California from 2006-2007, which prompted newspaper articles, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article" Doesn't have? How about this: October 2007 California wildfires?


 * "You cannot even show ONE scientific paper that quantifies a drop in cockroach populations, and in the absence of a legitimate phenomenon, then this article is nothing more than speculation by non-scientists about something which may not even be genuine" This article does not say this IS a scientific phenomenon. The article is not about scientific fact, but rather about media phenomenon. It is not clear yet if this is genuine or not. If this will turn out to be an urban legend, we'll have to rewrite the 1st paragraph to explicitly tell that, since there's no reasons why there can be no articles about urban legends in Wikipedia. Netrat (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny. In ru-wiki, sysops and ArbCom members constantly tell us that we should prefer secondary sources ofer primary ones. -Netrat (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cockroaches have disappeared from all big cities in Russia (I live in Russia - I can say it), and the fact that the Russian science community doesn't pay attention to this problem doesn't undermine the value of this article. I'd even say more: a gut feeling inside me whispers to me that there's a massive chemical attack being carried out against the ex-USSR population even though prudent Wikipedia administrators chuckle at this issue. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!! I haved lived in Russia for several years and THERE WERE Cockroaches IN MY KITCHEN(09.2010). And not only there I have talked to other people and they have observed them too (in several cities, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Brianks, and others...) It is absolutely rubbish I HAVE SEEN THEM! It's just pseudo-science and is sad to see it in wikipedia. My girlfriend actually battled hard with them. And prof it is very easy (if you understand russian) do a searxh for "средство от тараканов" (some think like "How to Kill Cockroaches") and you will find companies right now that make money of it, forums where people ask how to get rid of them etc... a random pair of those sites: http://www.woman.ru/home/medley9/thread/3884428/ and http://terikovnet.ru/unichtozhenie_tarakanov ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.195.201 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I live in Russia right now and i can tell you that for like 10-12 years there were absolutely NO cocroaches in MY kitchen, my parent's kitchen, my grandma's house, and same were true about my friends all over the city. However, about 2 months these little bastards returned and i'm not happy with it. 77.45.147.151 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

from the OR noticeboard
In trying to clarify your question about how primary/secondary source issues come into play here, I just noticed a chunk of discussion on the OR noticeboard regarding how primary/secondary sources are defined, and now see how it relates to this article. By substituting just a few words, in fact, it can be directly applied here, to show you how this is OR following Wikipedia's definitions. It's not quite what I had originally understood - technically - about the distinction between primary/secondary, but it makes sense to me now that I see someone else's explanation. To wit:
 * "ok, allow me to point out the obvious. the 'cockroach disappearance' is in fact a fringe theory, not an established fact. there is no actual thing to be pointed to, and no academic consensus on the existence or non-existence of this phenomenon. the only way secondary vs primary sourcing comes into this is in the use of partisan positions: sources which present partisan opinions (either by making claims about cockroach disappearance, or by refuting claims made by others) are primary sources - they are trying to establish a point and convince others that point is true. sources which collect claims from both sides and compare them or analyze them are secondary. there may be a gray area where a someone collects claims from both sides, analyzes them, and comes to a conclusion, but generally that can be handled: sources that take one side are primary, while sources that lay out the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and allow readers to draw their own conclusion are secondary."

The way this relates to OR is linking back to this part of WP:NOR:
 * Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

In other words, the Russian media is, in this case, acting as the primary source, because rather than analyzing both sides of an issue (one side of which would be that there is no phenomenon requiring explanation), they promote the issue as if it were already an established fact, and - moreover - that there may be some extraordinary explanation. Your article is serving as an interpretation AND synthesis of primary source material, and you are not relying upon an objective analysis from a secondary source; that's OR. Add to this problem the fact that these media sources are promoting hearsay (thus of very questionable reliability), and the lack of notability, and there is no good argument for keeping this article in Wikipedia. It fails the test of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NOTAB. (Note, for example, the following from WP:NOTAB - "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability").

Consider one last thing: your list of explanations includes not just one, but FOUR possible explanations which would invalidate the entire premise here (that there is a phenomenon that is so unusual it requires an equally unusual explanation): (1) New, improved chemicals and methods to fight cockroaches. (2) Usage of plastic bags to store domestic waste; discontinuation of rubbish chutes usage. (3) that depopulation of cockroaches is overexaggerated, or this phenomenon is temporary or cyclic. (4) Cockroaches might have migrated out of homes to other, more suitable places. These explanations are so obvious and SO TRIVIAL that it is almost beyond belief that anyone would seek out any OTHER explanations, or even care about the conclusion. Maybe it will amaze you to learn that the US also experienced a dramatic and rather abrupt reduction in roach populations - except that it happened a few decades ago, and no one went around discussing it in the newspapers or coming up with bizarre theories to explain it, and accordingly no one has inserted articles in Wikipedia that discuss the great cockroach depopulation of the US. It is not notable, even if it's true. Somehow, I don't think that if the title of the article was "Russian sanitation has improved since 2000" anyone would consider that notable enough to be worthy of its own article. It is NOT - it is something that is worthy of a link or two in an existing article somewhere, but that's ALL it deserves. Dyanega (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The russian media are not the primary source any more that newspapers are in general--we accept newspapers as RSs for essentially all events everywhere. They report the investigations of their reporters, and of other bodies. I don';t want to get into the question of the overall reliable of newspapers in that country as compared to elsewhere, but they';re the best sources for current events there. We do have to sort out the more serious newspapers, but many at least of the citations clearly are from such. And they are clearly substantial, and the content relevant. That's all that's necessary. The question that some people come up with absurd explanations is separated quire properly in the present article and sourced separately. Yes, we should look for further academic sources also, and, if found, summarize them in sufficient detail. Alternatively, if not real, we should look for academic sources saying so. Cockroaches in X are a suitable topic for an article--perhaps the title should be changed  to something more idiomatically English. I really see no other problems with the article, except the advisability of giving a translated quote from some of the key sources.) Lots of things in the world seem trivial--though the relation to sanitation may seem obvious in the broadest scope, the details of what aspects of sanitation are the ones of key relevance are significant and interesting, at least to those interested in the subject.

Expansion? A series?
Perhaps we do need an article on the history of cockroach populations in the US -- coming from a large city there, it remains a subject of discussion. The main article on cockroaches seems entirely inadequate to the subject. DGG (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're stuck with this article
So we might as well improve it. Perhaps the original writer would care to revisit it after all these years? I have some thoughts about what might improve it:
 * 1. a scholarly source documenting or refuting the depopulation, or at least a scientist quoted in the news.
 * 2. a discussion of whether or not the depopulation occurred, not just references to it being uncertain. This might include restoring the old discussion of urban legend status. The "Scientific Attention" section should be more than an afterthought.
 * 3. attribution of the various humorous explanations for the phenomenon. This would hopefully become a discussion of what the depopulation means to people living there.

Tdimhcs (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * These are excellent suggestions. It's a shame that nobody appears to have followed thru on them. This article is a real head-scratcher. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PS - Anybody who thinks the issue of cockroach populations is "trivial" is seriously out-to-lunch -- as anybody who has ever endured a cockroach infestation can attest to. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsafe balls
"ingestion of unsafe balls" sounds strange - is that a bad translation of some of the (cyrillic-only, not readable by me) sources, or is it a joke? (Apart from my observation that this article describes a phenomenon that I have never heard of before.) --Mopskatze (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was just vandalism. I've restored the original wording of "unsafe substances". --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Depopulation of cockroaches in post-Soviet states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620231417/http://www.ruscourier.ru:80/archive/2889 to http://www.ruscourier.ru/archive/2889

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)