![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Um, can't one just shave one's head? It's sort of fashionable anyway, especially among middle-age men. - Rolypolyman 07:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at cleaning this up, mainly by cutting out some data and rearranging the rest but it really needs a good workout by someone with more time. 85.210.113.18 11:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Caught a few refereces to lice as insects. Lice are not insects! 85.2.197.196 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Lice are indeed insects, of the order Phthiaptera, and descended from winged ancestors. You may be confusing them with mites, which are arachnids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.102.30.138 ( talk) 16:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This article reads more like a how-to rather than a discussion about the removal of lice from humans. 202.89.152.42 09:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this for the same reasons I gvae on the main Head Lice page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Head_louse NBeddoe 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The advert for Louse Buster is back. The hot air reference seems valid enough but it should be rewritten in a way that prevents it being a blatant advert. "highly effective way to kill all stages of head lice – including lice eggs!" The exclamation mark speaks volumes. Anyone got a good reason why I should not rewrite this as a section about hot air instead of the 'louse buster'? Mtpaley ( talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Louse Buster is back again. At least this time there is a link which looks fairly reasonable. Is it a reasonable entry? Personally I would prefer to replace the second two sentences with ", such as the LouseBuster[ref]" Mtpaley ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_louse#Shaving_the_Head : "A completely shaven head is not necessary, the hair only needs to be cut to 1 inch or less." Yet still this article specifically states that "A completely shaven head is necessary, a mere buzz cut is not sufficient." This should probably be checked up... - 88.91.191.62 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The cited article agrees with this page. However, this page has some info directly copy-pasted from the source. "Shaving the head gives the lice little to grasp to stay attached to the head. In addition to head hair, lice may infest facial hair or eyebrows, and these may also need to be removed for effective treatment. While effective, some patients may find the hair removal aesthetically unappealing." [1] Fixedd 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The 'Treatment modalities not recommended' section contradicts directly with several of the methods described on the WikiHow link directly below the passage. hash 03:22, 24 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.84.46 ( talk)
The overlap is huge and verbatim. I suggest everything before the Treatment section be removed, considering that that is the purpose of the entry. 81.23.48.101 ( talk) 11:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Confusing: "One to three days after the last treatment, i.e., days 11, 12 and 13, hair should be checked with a louse comb. If no living lice are found, the treatment was successful, even if nits/eggs are visible on the hair. If living lice are still present, the treatment should be repeated using an anti-louse product with a different active ingredient."
Why is it alright if there are still nits present on the hair after the second treatment? Aren't they going to hatch, since most of the treatments don't actually kill the nits? Hence the whole process of "nitpicking"? 67.193.50.101 ( talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Tina
The statement "Food-grade oils, hair gels, Vaseline and mayonnaise as well as formulations meant only for parasitic insects on pets or free-living insects in the household (e.g., ants and cockroaches) are not recommended for head lice treatment.[23]" is not supported by the article Footnote 23 purports to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.62.89 ( talk) 10:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Mainly to address the fact that the article at the moment is a how-to rather than a commentary. An article on ... say religiously-motivated "terrorism" does not include the methods of making bombs; rather, it talks about why people do various things.
After culling the actual treatment information, the actual commentary probably will make up only a few paragraphs.
The OR tag is to indicate that the information is from people's own experiences of the subject of the article.
118.90.28.56 ( talk) 03:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It may seem that I have something against the Robicomb, but I don't. I would welcome the addition of properly sourced material. The only thing I could find with a cursory search is the IHA book recommending against its use, so I added that. Opposing viewpoints welcome as long as they are reliably sourced. Rees11 ( talk) 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The section of Electric Comb, citing that it is effective (footnote 10), (i.e. the Robi comb, which is specifically mentioned in the original document), is suspect, considering it's a published "Letter to the Editor," not a link to an actual research paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.45.222 ( talk) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Summers Laboratories is developing a non pesticide lice treatment that kills by asphyxiation". This does not make sense, compare it to the definition of pesticide in wikipedia "A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest". Mtpaley ( talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't believe the subheading on the use of Gasoline is particularly impartial. It speaks of the risks of potential burns and dermatitis but say nothing of it's effectiveness. If someone can list some examples of this stuff working would be a good inclusion. (and it does work, believe me I tried everything before gas, except the Dimethicone treatment... looks good) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 ( talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to wonder about the comment that a lit cigarette can set fire to gasoline. Sorry, but a lit cigarette will not start gas on fire (it will go out when dropped in gas) I think that that part should be removed.
Bmillham ( talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)bmillham
"However, head lice are known to be resistant of commercial products.". How do the lice know if the product is commercial or not? -- 93.216.69.201 ( talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Something might be missing from this article, but I don't know how to find out. A late relative of mine was a youth in the 1940s-50s in Ontario, Canada, around Muskoka or Windsor. He often claimed that he was subjected to either radiation or x-ray treatment to the head, as a treatment for lice. I think he said it was long and/or repeated enough to cause his hair to temporarily fall out, and he was glad that there were no other apparent negative results in his life. I'm trying to uncover any facts of such a treatment for lice in history, but have come up empty. Is there evidence one way or the other? Could he have been lied to about the purpose of the treatment? 24.55.241.136 ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)