Talk:Bed bug infestation

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

History, Society, Culture -- abbreviate?

In order to avoid duplication of effort, wouldn't it be better to cut these sections way down and refer readers to the article about bedbugs? (It might also make sense to trim discussion of cimicosis in the main article, so that effort can be concentrated here.) Both articles have a lot of references, and maintaining both in both places would be difficult. Yakushima (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? And which article is the main one? The one about the disease or the one about the organism? WP:MED has a formal structure for organizing disease articles WP:MEDMOS --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, by "main article" I meant bedbug -- of which this article is mostly a very recent, trimmed copy, as I'm sure you know since you've been editing it a lot. Yakushima (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All we have is a short summary of this article in the bedbug article and vice versa. None of the history or society and culture sections overlap as sections were moved not copied. Plan to improve things further in the line of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis B Virus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it now. My first reaction to some of the sections here was "wait, this is verbatim from bedbug!". It didn't occur to me that you'd moved rather than copied because .... well, a lot of what you moved isn't about cimicosis per se, so I can't see why it should have been removed from bedbug.

Bedbugs are ultimately highly notable because of their health effects, of course. Apart from that, the article bedbug is a mix of entomology, history, and relatively recent events around the resurgence of the insect. For example, mention of the unwillingness of the well-to-do or of certain businesses in New York City to be as forthcoming as they might have been about their infestations in their homes/store is on-topic, but it's not about cimicosis per se. And discussion of traditional control techniques is about how to fight bedbugs, not how to treat cimicosis. After all, even if bedbug bites posed no medical or public health problems at all, people would have tried to figure out how keep them at bay or kill them. Bedbugs would be less notable, in that case, to be sure, but given their propensity to feed on humans and how objectionable people find them when they are proliferating out of control, they'd still be of more than just entomological interest, while being of almost no medical interest. Yakushima (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree they would be more like termites in that case. The history section was split and only the stuff the dealt beneficially with treatment was moved. I guess the main section of overlap is the epidemiology section. What I propose to deal with this overlap of content is expanding the epidemiology section. Moving it to a page call epidemiology of bedbugs summarizing this content on both bedbug and bedbug bite with links to said page. This will take some work to expand the epidemiology sufficiently to deserve its own page but do you think this would address your concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think epidemiology could use its own article -- though it might be called "Late 20th century bedbug resurgence", or something like that. After all, that resurgence is what's given the whole topic a significant claim on people's attention these days, and covering topical subjects is one of Wikipedia's relative strengths. (It seems like it's been "The Summer of Bedbugs" in the media, with the NYT running an article every other week or so.) Various bedbug-related social concerns might fit under this same category, since all the old ones seem to be staging a comeback as well.

But that's not all. Even though I've been savagely censorious of anything smacking of a WP:HOWTO violation, in fact it was bedbug control and eradication that got me into this topic in the first place (I help run a small inn). I think a separate article about control and eradication could have a place as well. I'm fine with bedbug being about half entomology and half summaries of other articles. And I think bedbug bites is a very welcome step in that organizational direction. Bedbug was still pretty long even after I (and others) had trimmed it dramatically for WP:HOWTO violations and verbosity, and I had a hard time seeing how it could grow gracefully without becoming a set of related articles. Since the Big Clampdown, it seems like it's only been a small handful of us "holding the fort" against vandalism, WP:HOWTO vios, new unreferenced contributions, and other problems.

Separate articles might be better insofar that they help foster an appropriate division of labor and a finer focus. Entomology, pest control, epidemiology, dermatology, popular perceptions and current events -- there's so much to cover. Sure, the overlap among these is significant. But I think it's manageable. Yakushima (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of moves, not much detail about source and destination

IIRC, strictly speaking, when you move or copy from one article to another, you're supposed to note source and destination in the respective edit summaries. See WP:COPYWITHIN. It's only a guideline, but this is one of those cases where following it would lend itself to smoother collaboration. Yakushima (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The first two edits of this page state that the content was from bedbug. The spit was also discussed on the bedbug page. Listed at the top of that page and a summary was created within the bedbug page. Wondering which part of the policy I did not comply with?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a policy, just a guideline. I find the precise recommendations a little too much; but "moved from bedbug" and "moved to bedbug bites as edit summaries would have made it clearer what you were doing. Anyway, almost a quibble. Yakushima (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Immigration as a factor in resurgence?

In the on-line summary of the JAMA article, there is no mention of immigration as a possible (much less likely) cause of resurgence. Is this actually sourced against the article itself? If so, what source does the article itself use?

I ask because bedbugs appeared to have been quelled as a major problem despite high and ongoing immigration flows during the period before resurgence. I have yet to see a factual determination of immigration as a factor (i.e., immigration flows making outbreaks more frequent in places where bedbugs were endemic, albeit at a low level, to begin with.)

I'm also concerned because of a relatively frequent style of vandalism seen with bedbug: blaming resurgence on immigrants (or citing immigrants as a major factor), invariably without support from any source, much less a reliable one. I certainly don't want to be inviting more of that sort of edit, in either bedbug or bedbug bites. Can anyone tell me what the JAMA article actually says on this point? Yakushima (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have since turned up the quote, getting a snippet out of Google Scholar. This article previously used the weakly authoritative "It is thought" and an indirect quote. But thought by whom? Dermatologists? Epidemiologists? Entomologists? I provide direct attribution and a direct quote, which leaves the conclusion considerably more tentative, as you can see from the "may" in the actual wording.

I think if this article really needs to go into detail about vectors, sources closer to those who study bedbugs for a living should be considered more reliable than purely medical sources. Which inclines me more toward entomologists and public health authorities who have specific pest-control expertise. Yakushima (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting example of how "immigration" creeps in when it might not actually be supported by sources, even among entomologists. This paper [1] asserts positively

International travel, immigration, changes in pest control practices, and insecticide resistance have contributed to a recent resurgence of this blood-sucking insect in developed countries (Potter 2006; Romero et al. 2007).

Although I haven't found online sources for the papers specifically cited above, Potter and Romero seem considerably more circumspect than this, in the one paper of theirs I did find:

Various hypotheses have attempted to explain the rapid resurgence of bed bugs in this country which became noticeable in the late-1990s. They include: increased travel to and from areas of the world where the bugs remained common; increased exchange of second-hand furniture and a lack of vigilance by the public; a shift from premise-wide use of broad-spectrum insecticides to more selective control tactics for other urban pests; and insecticide resistance (Doggett et al., 2004; Potter, 2005). While the above factors presumably contributed to the resurgence, it remains a mystery why bed bug populations have increased so quickly after being so scarce for so long.[2]

"Increased travel to and from areas of the world where the bugs remained common", like all travel, is surely overwhelming dominated by round-trip visits, not by immigration. Round-trip travel can take in several destinations (hotels), providing opportunities for bedbugs to leave the personal effects of one host, take up temporary residence, breed, hitchhike (with any progeny) on the personal effects of another human host -- or several of them, serially. Immigration tends to be old-home-to-new-home travel, very often with a lot of cleaning and sorting of belongings going on at both ends, and within a family -- none of which would be nearly as conducive to spreading bedbugs.

If we're going to use secondary sources on this question, I think it's better if they aren't medical, and (as you can see above) better if they accurately reflect their primary sources. If nobody has ever nailed immigration as a significant vector, it's probably better to omit mention of it entirely. And not least because it invites the kind of vandalism that so often plagues the bedbug article. Yakushima (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've found the full text of the JAMA article (silly me, for assuming full-text would cost me), and found the references used to support what's said about immigration as a vector. One reference is to Potter's 2006 "perfect storm" article -- and it says nothing about immigration [3]. The other is to "Insecticide Resistance in the Bed Bug: A Factor in the Pest’s Sudden Resurgence?", which I've already quoted above -- and which also says nothing about immigration.

If there's something notable here, it's that people are quick to blame immigrants for bedbugs -- even some entomologists and MDs, who should know better. Potter, Romero et al. are bedbug specialists. Like any good specialist, they know what they don't know. Yakushima (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed references to immigration, and substituted cites to Romero, et al. Yakushima (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good and agree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Health effects of bedbugs → Bedbug bites — More direct/obvious name. The article seems to be exclusively about bites. Most of the "Health effects of" articles concern substances with both possible positive and negative effects, whereas there are no positive effects of bedbug infestation, so at the least a more negative and less general title would be appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the psychological effects and allergic symptoms may occur without a bite thus I placed it at health affects.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Is there something less vague and more obviously negative than "health effects"? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved Health effects of bedbugs to Bedbug infestation as this name is more broad, allowing discussion of the health effects of bedbugs regardless of whether a "bite" has occured or not. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, we don't have flea infestation, we just identify carried diseases in flea. Compare mosquito infestation, mosquito, tick infestation, tick, blackfly infestation, blackfly, cockroach infestation, cockroach, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question is how should we present the organism and the health effects caused by said organism. We do have Hepatitis C and Hepatitis C virus. We have Scabies and Sarcoptes scabiei. We should do something similar here so that those who wish an indepth discussion of the organism will go to the page that provides that and those who wish and indepth discussion of health effects will find that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, there are reliable sources (see the textbooks listed at WP:DERM:REF for examples) that use "infestation" for certain cutaneous conditions. Three examples include Itch mite infestation, Bedbug infestation, and Head lice infestation. Therefore, while we don't have to keep the current name of this article, I think there is precedent for considering the term "infestation" as an option. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am fine with infestation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Itch mite infestation and Head lice infestation are redirects. Bedbug infestation is this article under discussion. So those examples aren't persuasive. ICD 10 describes codes in B85 through B88 (with different titles) as infestations, but I note that each of these represents an infestation of a human host, not just cohabitation of a human environment. I note also that most (if not all) of them are significant vectors for worms, virii or other infectious agents, which I don't believe is the case for bedbugs. I'd be fine with sections on "spread", "controls", even "impact" if we have a MEDRS to support it, but I don't at present see a special case here for a dedicated article. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion regarding what to call this article. Do not understand your suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

MCCiC presented a set of examples that don't really bear up under closer examination. I think the article should be merged to Bedbug bites unless some other health effect can be supported with a wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)