Talk:Bed bug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Bed bug was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
September 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Insects (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Bed bug is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Bed bug at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
News This has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Possible refs[edit]

The EL section is not a place for possible refs. Thus moving

  • Stephen Doggett. Bed Bugs: Clinical Relevance and Control Options. Clinical Microbiological Reviews, 25(1):164–192.
  • Stephen Doggett. A Bed Bug Management Policy for Accommodation Providers. First ed, ICPMR, Sydney Australia, Sep 2011.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has a pessimistic view of treatments[edit]

There's no mention of permethrin and many other insecticides which can be used.

The article gives the impression it's pointless trying to eradicate the things. It isn't.Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to go over the treatments section and give it a revamp, so I'll keep outlook in mind. The problem is that pessimism isn't entirely unfounded. Do-it-yourself type treatments practically never work, and those of us entomologist who work in extension pretty much always recommend getting a professional to do it. Then think about how if you're dealing with an apartment or hotel, it's extremely hard to eradicate the bugs from the building and keep them out. It's not an easy task, so the content will reflect that to some degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. But the difficulty with eradication lies in part at least with the bugs hiding themselves so well which non-professionals can't handle.Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hunger bubbles[edit]

A picture caption says "A bed bug with hunger bubbles visible in its gut". There is no Wikipedia article hunger bubble and a Google search for "hunger bubbles" (with quotes) suggests that the term is not widely used and few if any of the existing Internet uses of the term relate to bubbles in the stomachs of any insect, or even any arthropod, or even any animal. I suggest that the caption be modified to avoid using this nonstandard term. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen the term used either in entomology before, although it looks like there are a few very old sources that may have used the term a bit. I almost would have guessed it was vandalism/some kid making the term up. Either way it appears it would be undue weight on a relatively unused term, and WP:JARGON to boot. That being said, do we even need the picture? It's not the greatest quality, and it's not really showing much we can comment on anyways it seems. Maybe just delete the image all together? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dubious: Effectiveness of boric acid[edit]

In the "management" section, the article says "Boric acid, occasionally applied as a safe indoor insecticide, is not effective against bed bugs because they do not groom." Source cited is Miller, Dini (2008). "Bed bugs (hemiptera: cimicidae: Cimex spp.)". In Capinera, John L. Encyclopedia of Entomology (Second ed.). Springer. p. 414. ISBN 978-1-4020-6242-1.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contradicts this at, which says:

Desiccants work by destroying the waxy, protective outer coating on a bed bug. Once this coating is destroyed, the bed bugs will slowly dehydrate and die. Desiccants are a valuable tool in bed bug control. Because desiccants work through a physical mode of action, the bed bugs cannot become resistant to desiccants as they can to pesticides with other modes of action. In addition, they have a long-lasting effect and don't disturb normal bed bug activities.

Examples of desiccants include:

  • Diatomaceous earth.
  • Boric acid.

When using desiccants to control bed bugs it is critical to use those that are registered by EPA and labeled for bed bug control. Desiccants that are intended for other uses, such as food-grade or for use in swimming pools, pose an increased inhalation risk to people. Use of desiccants is limited to cracks and crevices use only to reduce inhalation risk.

I think the EPA source is more authoritative in this case, but I'll leave it for someone more knowledgeable in these matters to make the call.

Pixeldawg (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the efficacy of some treatments are overstated relative to the publisled literature, including this one. I've been meaning to review the treatment section and tighten it up, but I haven't had time yet. The EPA would be a more reliable source here, so feel free to shape content to reflect that in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)