Talk:Mountain pine beetle

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles High‑importance

	Insects portal Mountain pine beetle is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jack Pine

Apparently they found beetles killing jack pine. I don't know enough to contribute to the article but that's a pretty big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.73.27.197 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

How Many eggs and broods do they lay? How fast do they spread? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.21.56 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Expansion

A lot more information could be added to this article. How can they be controlled? What research is being done into counteracting their effect? Were they introduced to the forest by man?--P Todd (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article also contains several factual errors and significant ommissions. Bikist33 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)bikist33[reply]

Beetles and firewood

When driving in PA (or maybe VA), I saw a billboard on the side of the highway telling people not to move firewood, and giving a website (which I've forgotten). It didn't really state WHY you shouldn't move firewood, only that mountain pine beetles were bad, which led me to looking them up on Wiki. So.. what's the connection between beetles and firewood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.86.36 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sawmill explosions?

In the wake of recent sawmill explosions in British Columbia, there's been speculation that sawdust from beetle-infested pines is much drier -- and thus, more flammable/explosive -- than otherwise. Is this worth putting in the article (assuming we have proper sources)? DS (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy trees don't suffer so much

The bark beetles are natural. The article does not point out very well that well watered trees that are in a natural fire regime are not so dense and thus prone to attack. It also does not mention that treatment with cu and mn can prevent attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.191.183 (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention the southern pine beetle?

This redirect is wrong, as there is more than the Mountian Pine Beetle. There should be a page listing the various pine beetles, with the Mountian pine beetle having the existing good link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.12.10 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention the southern pine beetle?

This redirect is wrong, as there is more than the Mountian Pine Beetle. There should be a page listing the various pine beetles, with the Mountian pine beetle having the existing good link.

EDIT : there's a bug in Firefox vs this page, there is no page ack'ing the submit once the submit button is clicked. Refreshing the blank page causes multiple submits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.12.10 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention the southern pine beetle?

This redirect is wrong, as there is more than the Mountian Pine Beetle. There should be a page listing the various pine beetles, with the Mountian pine beetle having the existing good link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.12.10 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of "Management techniques" section

The management techniques section should be rewritten - it talks about a specific product far too deeply, reading like an advertisement rather than an article. 50.59.173.16 (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Several (many?) specific products are discussed with no particular emphasis on one company or supplier. Obviously added by someone very close to the studies. First critique of a Wikipedia entry I've ever made. 65.29.231.204 (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLATverb section is very dubious, being added by an IP which has done nothing but insert ISCA Technologies references to several articles. I removed the most offensive passage stating the success of treating the beetle infestation hinges on accepting SPLATverb, but don't have time to analyze the previous paragraph. I will note the only study mentioned was done by the company in question. 128.252.25.36 (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out more about the study mentioned here: "In August 2011, 350 acres of pine forest in the Black Hills of South Dakota were sprayed aerially with Soil Pro, a solution of beneficial microbes and structured water. A follow up evaluation in spring of 2012 revealed a complete eradication of the pine beetle in the area sprayed with one application of a product developed by ABC Organics and Greenfield Naturals. Costs per acre averaged $22.00 which included product, air drop services and yearly evaluation surveys. Further information on the Black Hills Pine Beetle Eradication project can be obtained from Greenfield Naturals and ABC Organics." I have found the companies ABC Organics and Greenfield Naturals but I could not a find anything about the "Black Hills Pine Beetle Eradication project" I'm very interested in the subject and any help would be appreciated.

I agree "The management techniques section should be rewritten". There has been a large (100+ scientists), long-standing (40-50 yr) effort by the US Forest Service, dozens of universities, other government agencies and many others to evaluate management options for Mountain pine beetle. This article promotes a select set of options and I agree it reads like an advertisement. It is not balanced. I've spent a graduate career (MS and PhD) and post-doctoral work studying this beetle and it is one of the most important insects in forests of North America (ecologically and economically). There should be an excellent balanced article.129.15.39.96 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems completely biased with respect to Greenfield Naturals and ABC Organics. I could find nothing whatsoever about this alleged study utilizing Soil Pro. If there was a study done, it wasn't published anywhere that I could find. This reference seems inappropriate and completely out of place in this article that otherwise contains factual, scientifically validated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.94.196 (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking both out in the absence of additional, or, in the case of Soil Pro, any sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mountain pine beetle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mountain pine beetle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100808033540/http://www.2003firestorm.gov.bc.ca:80/ to http://www.2003firestorm.gov.bc.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mountain pine beetle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1999-2015 outbreak

It seems the "current" outbreak is now over, these two government sources call it the "1999-2015 outbreak" (even though it seems to have begin 1996): USDA and BC Gov. Should we adopt this terminology and add information about the end of the outbreak? --hroest 19:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written..

There are inline "citation needed" tags since 2014, as well as "spam cleanup", and "needs updating". Reassess the article to C-class. -- Otr500 (talk)

Exteral links

There were thirteen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

Note: Moved from talk page