Talk:Schmidt sting pain index

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Insects: Hymenoptera / Ants Low‑importance This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hmm. Around the end of March, a well-meaning user edited most of the humorous text out of this article.

Now, it's my impression that that text came straight from Schmidt--that it's his own way of making a tongue-in-cheek thing like a sting pain index even more masochistically amusing. That seems in keeping with the one Web-available reference cited in the article (but only "in keeping," note: that reference doesn't contain the whole index); given what's been said on this talk page, I assume that Idleguy didn't write the text himself.

I'm a total outsider to this question, mind. I'm exceedingly unlikely to weigh in on any sort of edit war over it. Iralith 22:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an outsider too, though for what it's worth, wikipedia very rarely quotes even phrases directly from sources, let alone sentences or paragraphs. The tone is interesting, but perhaps not quite suited to an encyclopedia, so it would be best, if kept, if they could be more directly attributed to Schmidt. I do think it would be nice if it were kept on the web somewhere, but I don't think

Interiot 23:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can anyone provide a citation for the paper?Andrewwyld 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of citations--it turns out there's more to Schmidt's original paper than the article made clear, anyway. Hence I edited in the bits about social behaviour in Hymenopterans and stuck three citations in, one of which is online and provides much information about the original papers. I'll see if I can root out the originals and improve the article further--apparently the final 1990 index classifies *78* species of insect!!Andrewwyld 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1984 paper is not about social behaviour, it's about hemolytic strength of venoms. The 1990 paper is actually in a book to which I don't have access, but there are enough references to that from reputable sources that I think it's likely to contain these colourful descriptions. Iridium77 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was trying to link social behaviour with hemolytic strength, but I still haven't had a chance to read the originals so I could well be wrong. I will be chceking it up shortly; mean time, thanks for the change :) Andrewwyld 06:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an entomologist, but this text just seems bizarre and non encyclopedic.75.153.241.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it seems that the overly colourful descriptions and highly precise ratings are well beyond what Schmidt has actually written, according to Cecil of Straight Dope, who interviewed Schmidt for 30 mins for this article [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.119.209.194 (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian giant hornet is, according to its wikipedia entry, supposed to have a rather painful sting. Were the Schmidt Sting Pain Index less subjective than it'd appear to be, it'd be interesting to see where this hornet would rank. TerraFrost 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's described by Masato Ono, another entomologist, as "like a hot nail being driven into my leg", which sounds comparable to Paraponera, with the additional factor of being much more commonly fatal. I don't know if Schmidt has been stung by one. I need to find that 1990 paper .... Andrewwyld 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the bibliography of an article linked from the

Schmidt, J.O. (1986): Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Chemical Ecology of Ant Venoms. In: Venoms of the Hymenoptera (Piek, T., ed.). Academic Press, pp. 425-509.

Schmidt, J.O. (1990): Hymenopteran Venoms: Striving Toward the Ultimate Defense Against Vertebrates. In: Insect Defenses, Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators (Evans D.L. & Schmidt, J.O., Ed's.). State Univ. of New York Press, Albany, pp: 387-419.

I don't have the time or resources to run these down myself, but they may be useful.

what about the bulldog ant?

I can't believe neither Schmidt nor Starr mention the

anyone seen any data for these two? Widefox 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Starr's paper, Schmidt rates them both a 2. Hornets get the same.

Is there any difference between the two ratings? Schmidt has fine non-integer ratings, so are they rounded for Starr e.g. are hornets rated 2.0 with Schmidt?, 2 Star? Widefox 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the colours from ^[1] colour scale goes: light to dark: least to more painful: a, b, c, d

• a Imported fire ant - Solenopsis invicta
• b Yellow jacket - Vespula germanica
• b Honeybee - Apis mellifera
• b Africanized ("killer") bee - Apis mellifera scutellata
• b Hornet - Vespa crabro
• c Paper wasp - Polistes annularis
• c Harvester ant - Pogonomyrmex maricopa
• d Pepsis wasp - Vespula germanica

combining with:

   * 1.0 Sweat bee: Light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.
   * 1.2 Fire ant: Sharp, sudden, mildly alarming. Like walking across a shag carpet & reaching for the light switch.
   * 1.8 Bullhorn acacia ant: A rare, piercing, elevated sort of pain. Someone has fired a staple into your cheek.
   * 2.0 Bald-faced hornet: Rich, hearty, slightly crunchy. Similar to getting your hand mashed in a revolving door.
   * 2.0 Yellowjacket: Hot and smoky, almost irreverent. Imagine WC Fields extinguishing a cigar on your tongue.
   * 2.5 European hornet [citation needed]
   * 3.0 Red harvester ant: Bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a drill to excavate your ingrown toenail.
   * 3.0 Paper wasp: Caustic & burning. Distinctly bitter aftertaste. Like spilling a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on a paper cut.
   * 4.0 Pepsis wasp: Blinding, fierce, shockingly electric. A running hair drier has been dropped into your bubble bath (if you get stung by one you might as well lie down and scream).
   * 4.0+ Bullet ant: Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail in your heel.

gives a=1.x, b=2.x, c=3.x, d=4.x

• 1.x Imported fire ant - Solenopsis invicta
• 2.x Yellow jacket - Vespula germanica
• 2.x Honeybee - Apis mellifera
• 2.x Africanized ("killer") bee - Apis mellifera scutellata
• 2.x Hornet - Vespa crabro
• 3.x Harvester ant - Pogonomyrmex maricopa
• 3.x Paper wasp - Polistes annularis
• 4.x Pepsis wasp - Vespula germanica

giving:

   * 1.0 Sweat bee: Light, ephemeral, almost fruity. A tiny spark has singed a single hair on your arm.
   * 1.2 Fire ant: Sharp, sudden, mildly alarming. Like walking across a shag carpet & reaching for the light switch.
   * 1.8 Bullhorn acacia ant: A rare, piercing, elevated sort of pain. Someone has fired a staple into your cheek.
   * 2.0 Bald-faced hornet: Rich, hearty, slightly crunchy. Similar to getting your hand mashed in a revolving door.
   * 2.0 Yellowjacket: Hot and smoky, almost irreverent. Imagine WC Fields extinguishing a cigar on your tongue.
   * 2.x Honeybee: [citation needed]
   * 2.x Africanized ("killer") bee: [citation needed]
   * 2.x European hornet [citation needed]
   * 3.0 Red harvester ant: Bold and unrelenting. Somebody is using a drill to excavate your ingrown toenail.
   * 3.0 Paper wasp: Caustic & burning. Distinctly bitter aftertaste. Like spilling a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on a paper cut.
   * 4.0 Pepsis wasp: Blinding, fierce, shockingly electric. A running hair drier has been dropped into your bubble bath (if you get stung by one you might as well lie down and scream).
   * 4.0+ Bullet ant: Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail in your heel.

Widefox 16:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This colourful prose, I think, is enhanced by more than usual links. A few of the terms arguably might need disambiguation (nail (toe) vs nail (metal)) Widefox 12:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry on the Australian ant Myrmecia forficata says "its venom is some of the most powerful in the insect world". This could be very high on the pain scale. US authors typically ignore Australian biology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.25.103 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or to a disambiguation page of the various pain chart/indexes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.100.38 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at Talk:Starr sting pain scale. More info is needed. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry about the addition of mud daubers to the list with my IP; this was my friend who likes to edit wiki with my computer...told him to stop adding stuff like that and he won't do it again...sorry again : ( --The Lord of the Allosaurs (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the comparisons made on this page may be unhelpful examples, as most people have not experienced these examples. For example, unless you have spent a lot of time being overly clumsy in a chemistry lab, you are not likely to have ever spilled an intire beaker of HCl acid into an open wound. Because of this, you would not know how painfull it was. Also, how many people do you know who can use "walking across a bed of hot coals with a three-inch rusty nail in your heal" as a frame of reference? I think examples that more people can relate to should be added. --Fountain Pen (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Schmidt described some of the experiences in vivid detail". Your argument is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.105.226 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I wonder if we should consider Schmidt a

WP:COPYPASTE. FWIW: My first assumption when I saw this page was that it had been vandalized, and as this discussion goes back for 6 years, I guess I'm not the first. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

He's an entire reliable source as regards his descriptions. The article need not go into the veracity of Schmidt's descriptions in the Schmidt Sting Pain Index, since his descriptions are what the article is about. If we can find a reliable source referring to the desriptions as "fanciful", that would be useful; we can't characterize them as such otherwise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3052/did-the-creator-of-the-schmidt-sting-pain-index-volunteer-to-get-stung-by-everything-on-earth The Straight Dope says:

"As one might surmise given the nature of the research, the Schmidt index is subjective and based on limited data points. Schmidt says he’s been stung six to eight times by tarantula hawks and just once, in the forehead, by a warrior wasp. He acknowledges the pain can vary depending on where you get stung and how much venom was injected. For that reason he hedges his ratings, with bee stings ranging from 0 to 2. This may surprise those relying for their scientific information on Wikipedia, which provides a chart of the Schmidt index listing precise decimal gradations for sting severity, with the fire ant rated at 1.2 and the bullhorn acacia ant at 1.8. These implausibly exact numbers don’t appear in any of Schmidt’s scientific papers, but rather were wheedled out of him by an editor at Outside magazine, who was trying to goose up a story for that publication in 1996." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said this at the ANI thread, but figured I'd add it here as well. The American Entomologist link has the text of the descriptions used in the article, and the piece was from "Summer 2003", two full years before the Wikipedia article was created. That article specifically cites Schmidt's work in its references. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did a Google Books search for the phrase "Light, ephemeral, almost fruity" and got this, which seems to indicate the phrase is in the book Insect Defenses: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators, the exact 1990 book cited in the AE piece I linked above. I requested the book from my online library system and will take a look at it when it arrives at the local branch for pick up. But I'd say this is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the phrases used in this article and in the AE piece are in the book itself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar results for most (but not all) of the first sentences of the description. I'm inclined to chalk up the divergence due to partial google book text search coverage. Furthermore, this editor confirmed the source more than 6 years ago: [3]. I am curious if IP actually checked every reference, including the Outside article and the book before claiming that it wasn't in any of them. Funny, inline references at the site of use might have avoided this... Glaucus (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the comment introducing the table says that it is "subjective", "implausibly exact" and was "wheedled out" of him by Outside magazine. As this data is subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing it here with or without the very creative descriptions that were once associated with it and even with attribution is a violation of copyright. I have removed this table on these grounds. Please see this essay for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. WTucker (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I think. Once I've gotten the original text, I planned on rewriting it as prose with a few quotes anyway. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article all about, but not including the damn thing? where the hell is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.74.199 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on Hamlet does not reproduce Shakespeare's work, this article does not reproduce the creative effort of Schmidt. The purpose of the article is not to provide the index itself but to describe what reliable sources say about it and thus to describe it. WTucker (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

even so, a link to a place where the scale can be found would be useful, as many who go to such a page will wish to know about it. Archon1212 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of "Pain Level 4" states: "Schmidt has considered the stings of the tarantula hawk, the bullet ant and the warrior wasp to be the most painful stings. Coyote Peterson was debilitated with pain by the sting of the executioner wasp. It is possible that the executioner wasp could be displayed as a 5th pain level on the Schmidt pain index, although that could be viewed as a personal opinion.[7]"

This is problematic because [7] does NOT refer to Coyote Peterson's statements so is either incorrectly placed or entirely incorrect. There is already a reference listed for the video.

The second problem is that the final sentence is purely speculative and is NOT supported by what Coyote said in the video, which was released to the public today on YouTube: STUNG by an EXECUTIONER WASP!. Thus, that sentence needs to be revised.

In addition, the pain index was created by Schmidt and, while they have met and talked (Origin of STINGS!), this doesn't mean that he has the right to modify the list, right?--ReveurGAM (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]