Talk:Mosquito control

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmm00007. Peer reviewers: Josephlinger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this a good alinea?

Furthermore, genetic modification can also be a possible method, here you can divide it in two categories: males that will reproduce, but will make their children infertile. The other method is to change the genes of the mosquito's in such way that they won't be carriers anymore of diseases like malaria or dengue. This method however involves more risk, because humans could be occurring allergic reactions to the stings of the modified mosquito's.

I would love to see it in there, but it maybe needs a little more citations and needs to be rewritten a little bit, thanks in advance if you would be able to do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.162.182 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC) FUCK SO DULL FACTS

Was "Complete rewrite needed", now "Needs more, especially on developing world issues..."

To my mind, this article is currently too regionally specific, and also has priorities very much at odds with those of major authorities on the subject, such as the WHO. I'm going to attempt a clean-up myself, but further input would be appreciated Procrastinator supreme 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What priorities are at odds with WHO? Squamate 16:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we've got "disease control" coming in at third place. Surely it has to be the main reason for mosquito control in most of the world. Also, why does malaria get such a late mention in the list of diseases, with much less common diseases which happen to occur in the US coming first? Procrastinator supreme 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The list of mosquito-related problems wasn't written in any order of priority. Neither was the list mosquito-borne pathogens. Perhaps someone is reading more into those lists than is there; no attempt was made to exclude other regions of the world. It may just be, just maybe, that the people who contributed those sections to the article work in the United States or Europe and didn't want to write about topics with which they had very little experience. Remember, assume good faith. Squamate 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah -- malaria is mentioned in the third line of the article, ahead of any other mosquito-borne disease. Squamate 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bad day. Still think this needs work, though, but I'll tone down the comments at the top. Procrastinator supreme 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the article needs a lot more work. You're right about one thing, though; it is too regionally specific. But we all do what we can, right? As the article stands now, it can probably serve as a good starting point for a section entitled, "Mosquito Control In The United States". Australia, Canada, and Europe should be included, as well as Asian and African countries, and various Caribbean islands. Mexico and Central and South America, too. Squamate 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea - we could put almost all of the content here under the heading you suggest. Also, it's probably worth looking at the rather better section on Mosquito Control under the Mosquito article. Maybe we should suggest moving some of that content over here... Procrastinator supreme 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. There's no reason to have two pages with essentially the same content. Squamate 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to now the importance of mosquitos on earth, We're constantly thinking of the cons about having mosquitos and not the pros. That would be interesting. If you dont think it is worht writing about then email me at superdude2392@yahoo.com because i would still like to know Destiny Drop Out 7:32, October 23 2006(UTC) Who cares

There's no mention here or on the main Mosquito article about (I think) CDC attempts to breed mosquitoes that cannot be infected with malaria or other diseases, and thus reducing their harm. I tried to find an article to reference, but couldn't. Belltower 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also an article on Mosquito Lasers that seems highly related to this topic, but isn't even linked. Belltower (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The section Mosquito#Mosquito control and integrated mosquito management should be merged with this article (leaving only a brief section there with a {{main}} tage directing here). they obviously cover the same topic, and it does warrant a separate article. --Singkong2005 ^talk 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. They may be the same topic and everything, but there is far too much details on the mosquito itself already. Merging that article with this one will only damage the size.
• Apparently, mosquito control is good on its own, with many fine details and broad information. Colonel Marksman 21:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

aye

• • In case there was a misunderstanding by the first person who commented... information on the mosquito would stay at mosquito; that article would then have just a small section on mosquito control with a {{main}} tag note saying main article: Mosquito control. --Singkong2005 · talk 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

It looks like someone deleted some references from the list at the bottom of the page. Squamate 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ranking the effectiveness of methods

Recently the use of indoor spraying has received a lot of attention. Does it now rank up there with taking anti-malarial drugs, or what?

And is this the right place for malaria eradication campaigns, or should I be in vector control? (Sounds like a video game add-on ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I've moved some stuff from Mosquito that belongs here to a temporary "Merge" section. I'm working on it to eliminate duplication and blend what's useful, so I'm asking for patience. Swanny18 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, done Swanny18 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo date

The photo of the man spraying DDT included in this article has a caption: "In 1958, the National Malaria Eradication Program implemented the wide-scale use of DDT for mosquito control." However, the National Malaria Eradication Program ran from 1947 thru 1951. Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bti

There is a very important omission, Bti. You can not in all honesty make a risk to benefit analysis on the subject of mosquito control without discussing <Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis>. It is a major logic flaw. The assertion that DDT risks are outweighed by the benefits assumes there isn't a more effective and safer alternative. Since there is an alternative and it is being commercially produced for mosquito control, it needs to be mentioned in this section. (68.12.189.233 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosquito control. 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/20061124160833/http://gemi.mpl.ird.fr/cepm/SiteWebESS/GB/Chevillon/1999%20Chevillon%20et%20al%20Biol%20L%20Linn%20Sty.pdf to http://gemi.mpl.ird.fr/cepm/SiteWebESS/GB/Chevillon/1999%20Chevillon%20et%20al%20Biol%20L%20Linn%20Sty.pdf

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosquito control. 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/20121203013602/http://invasiber.org/EGarcia/papers/Alcaraz_BC_07.pdf to http://invasiber.org/EGarcia/papers/Alcaraz_BC_07.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)FUCK!!!! SO DULL FACTS!!!!!

Re: Mosquito Control: A Simple Optical Method

It is the title of an article of International Journal of Entomology Research, Vol. 5 Issue 6, P. 45-47 ISSN: 2455-4758 Peer Reviewed 2020 Per the policy of the journal it was independently reviewed by at least 2 scientists in the fields. If the contained information has anything of promotion purpose it was rejected in the first place. I also post in Science Section of Arduino forum with more than 9500 views. With the only objective is to teach them DYI with the only aim to have the community served and the benefit of the community only. In both places: I do take good care for it not to to be understood as a self serving "scheme". Of course it could be understood as a promotion. But the promotion of idea for the good to the others. I hope this clear out any misunderstand for you to reconsider to have it posted. Thanks. Phi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ephitran, The publisher, 'Global Science Research Journals' is a predatory publisher, so this is probably an unreliable source. Are you the author, or connected to the author in any way? MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the author. And it only cost me few (dozens) dollars, next to nothing on processing fee. If it cost me the hundreds I already rejected the process anyway.

I also personally knew some Vietnamese reviewers longtime back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs)

Please have a read of WP:COI as well, then. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I only knew where they were at, perhaps enough to recognize who they are if I meet them on the street. They were the celebrities at the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding text over my signature, it makes it appear that I wrote things I did not write. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Having a conflict of interest - in this instance wanting to add a journal article that you wrote to several Wikipedia articles - means that you are restricted to proposing text change and the reference at the Talk page of the article, for a dis-involved editor to decide to include or not. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Adding a new section: Optical control.

There are 2 distinct paths of optical mosquito control methods: one uses light  to attract and the other to repel. On one hand the CDC (Center of Disease Control) published 2 versions of mosquito light traps model 912 and the newer smaller model 512 which are currently used by most if not all local mosquito control offices. They are superb in catching live species. At the core of the designs, incandescent light sources  were used as attracting agents to lure them close, enough be sucked in by the act of a fan. On the other hand, the yellow light bulbs are currently marketed as devices to repel insects, mosquitoes included. There was a 1998 published study of the effectiveness of the traps using different colors as mosquito attracting agents. among them, the yellows resulted in the least counts¹.  The market also has other light traps that are built on the belief that they are attracted to the purple and the UV light sources.  There is also a new proposal² of using multicolor light pulse systems to flood the areas with simulated presences of other insects, possibly predators?  It claims to work on their perception, they translate the unending fast space changing of color as appearances of some who suddenly disappear in order to be replaced by another, over and over, they confuse and shy away.

¹Journal of The American Control Association 14(2):186-195, 1998

²International Journal of Entomology Research 5(6): 45-47, 2020

Ephitran (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope I found the references online, because you didn’t link to them: are they “Field evaluation of colored light-emitting diodes as attractants for woodland mosquitoes and other diptera in north central Florida” and “Mosquito control: A simple optical method” ? Ferkijel (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There are "2 International Journal of Entomology Research." One "genuine" and the "fake" The one that appears in the link of Beall's predatory list as "International Journal of Entomology Research." https://www.globalscienceresearchjournals.org/entomology-research.html

and the others:

http://www.entomologyjournals.com/

Please check. Damage done!

I think I was rushed into judgment.

FYI: Journals are rated at its RJIF number. The "genuine" is among the highest after Nature's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs)

 Not done, see my concerns above, includes a source from a predatory journal. - MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The RJIF isn't a well known metric (it appears to be a single person endeavor, in fact). Thompson Reuters is the publisher of the generally used impact factor. As to the 'two journals' issue, one is published by 'Global Science Research Journals', the other is 'Gupta Publications' - both are predatory publishers. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I got more "game changers" to take care of before my time is up. Beside the mosquito thing, RIIG (RPM Independent Induction Generator) and other . . .. Let the facts speak for themselves. Bye! Phi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs)

Being fair to the people not in the conversation:

(1) "International Journal of Entomology Research" does not appear in BEALL's predatory journal list.

(2) "International Journal of Entomology Research" does not appear in the result of their search engine.

(3) BEALL's also maintain predatory "publisher list. Some with the link to their journals other some other don't. It includes "Gupta"

(4) BEALL somehow either "fails" to make the connection between "Gupta" and "International Journal of Entomology Research". Or "missing" on the purpose? on on result?

(5) Follow the links of BEALL there is a "International Journal of Entomology Research" Which point to a "fake" journal who has the the banner to make people think it is the "real" "International Journal of Entomology Research" there must be a reason for it . - Honesty Question? What else? where else?

(6) Let the community being the judges. How many "fake" are yet to come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephitran (talk • contribs)

You should check the list again. I'm sorry that you got taken in by a less than reputable publisher, but the fact remains, this is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's is irrelevant.

What I said as of yesterday. It is you to use point the world to the "fake" link in the first place.

It is their to either fool reader - or just doing sloppy jobs.

You can spin all you want.

It is the community to trust if such the reliable "source" is trust worthy. They fails to follow their own criteria to rate others.

My best job is not to deal with those dishonest people.

My objective at the time:

(1) It's third party evaluation.

(2) It's as a part of the academic world record.

- I achieved both.

OFF THE TOPIC:

Beside mine we are approaching  1 year anniversary other mosquito "research" went silent. It's part of the academic record and the technology is in the public domain.

A Google search will lead to a huge amount of raw data videos and pictures format and in various depositories.

If they are not aware of it they are not qualified as an expert.   

If the assessments do not come along with what are of the public domain community they are making a fool of themselves. And it's in permanent record.

I do not try to win the conversation but patiently to let the facts speak for themselves, 1 by 1, 1 at a time.  The more "attack" count, the sweeter the final is.

Happy Mosquito Free!

Phi.

Waiting a bit and then adding more cites to yourself in a predatory journal is not going to work - please stop doing this. - MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Picture showing Chironomidae midges, not mosquitoes

The picture captioned "Walls on IRS-treated bathroom on the shores of Lake Victoria. The mosquitoes remain on the wall until they fall down dead on the floor." is not a picture of mosquitoes. Zooming in clearly shows the insects in the photo to be non-biting chironomid midges. 2620:0:E50:1015:790C:16B8:E1BD:9AFB (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 6 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nornorr (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cl0509.

— Assignment last updated by Ully16 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)