Talk:Necrosis

Oncosis vs. necrosis?

They're not the same thing - oncosis is the cell death, and necrosis occurs after. Maybe oncosis should be made and redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.161.179 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm

Hm. The parenthetical (instead of planned suicide) was deleted, but I think it might actually have belonged there. Anyone with the medical / biological knowledge, help? -- April

---

I believe that necrosis refers to death of some tissue, and not the whole organism, but i'm not sure. If i'm right, the planned suicide thing doesn't make sense, so I erased, till someone who could know comes along. AN

---

The article states there are FOUR types of necrosis, and then lists FIVE... maybe there is something to fix :-) --Kormoran 20:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be worth adding hobo spiders to the list, there's been a scare involving them which started a couple of years ago (especially in the midwest USA)

Nasal membranes?

More information on necrosis of the nasal passages from snorting drugs would be nice.

Counter Strike References

Really? What does some Source clan with the name Necrosis, and the condition, have in common? I've edited out references to their clan website. Shameless self promotion, that's not what Wikipedia is about.

World of Warcraft Addon for Warlocks

It is the best addon for warlocks available.

someone has messed with the necrosis page and edited an insult into the webpage (it said YOU SUCKZORZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). I ask the wikipedia management to restrict editing of the necrosis webpage as soon as possible. thanks.
66.66.190.54 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing image?

It seems to me that I've seen potentially disturbing images like the one in this article put into click-down boxes on occasion. I don't know how to do it, but if someone thinks it's a good idea, then someone could figure out how to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that disturbing image should not be so obtusely placed, someone who wants the information and not the revulsion should be able to access it. 24.152.217.54 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I restored this image. Whatever happened to WP:NOTCENSORED? Regardless of whether it is disturbing or not, it has unquestionable encyclopedic value as a very striking example of necrosis. Chaldor (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • noone is being a censorship nazi here, and I agree about the images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • • The first image seems alright, it might be disturbing to some but we are on a page that talks about a virus with disturbing effects. The second picture was too much, honestly if someone wants to see what it looks like when the disease progresses that far they can just Google it.

I [i]am[/i] questioning the encyclopaedic value of it, it's dead tissue, we get it. Wiki doesn't show disturbing images on the pages about death, dismemberment or torture either. I will support a drawing of an advanced stage of the virus, but this is unacceptable, especially considering that it's open to everyone. There could be children doing a report on the spider that causes it who come here. Too many people oppose the picture. Feyre (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thousands of medical conditions have "disturbing" pictures. This is not a childrens' bedtime story -- it's an encyclopedia. The picture describes what necrosis looks like, and is not obscene (a person sticking their tongue into the wound pictured would be obscene, for example...) ... [WP:NOTCENSORED]] applies here -- this picture should not be removed. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If you came to Wikipedia to look up things about some happy fun world, you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia shows the real deal, and it's usually not pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.146.205 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a option to make the pictures click-down boxes? That was the first question. Is it posible or not? 213.96.27.36 (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter if it is possible or not. It's not the norm on Wikipedia to use click-down boxes to hide disturbing images. Once again, see WP:NOTCENSORED. The image is very descriptive, has informative value, and very accurately represents the phenomenon explained in the article. --386-DX (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I viewed this article after following the mention on XKCD (see note below), and as such was unprepared for the content of this page. Frankly I'm appalled that the second image has been allowed to remain so long. As previous editors have pointed out, simply because something exists doesn't mean you have to show graphic pictures. In this case the second image adds no informative value - the first image already demonstrates the effects of necrosis, and is less disturbing. On a personal note, I'm a guy with a pretty strong stomach, but I'm unlikely to ever look up medical conditions on Wikipedia again after this experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.58.21 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion has by no means reached a consensus. I believe the image has a rightful place. WP:NOTCENSORED clearly states that some people might be offended by some content and if the community can prove that consensus is that the image should be removed, it can. However there is clearly deep division on this matter. Lastly, see WP:Content_disclaimer =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also belive we should stand by the WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't find it out of place. The article is about necrosis, and that's what the picture describes. As for 81.97.58.21 comming from XKCD... c'mon, why do you think they sent you this way? Didn't you see it comming? If you were reading XKCD you should already know what they're up to, don't play victim now.--200.56.177.11 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There is also no consensus to keep the image. And currently, more oppose the image in it's current form than support it. So surely it should be removed, perhaps temporarily, until consensus is reached? My XKCD comment was just to point out that people (including children, as previously pointed out) will come across this by chance. The image isn't out of place in terms of topic - but it adds no informational content, and is unnecessarily disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.91.118 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Some further thoughts: I understand the points on WP:NOTCENSORED, but note that it only applies if content is instructional. In this case, of course, I personally don't believe it is - so merely being offensive is not a reason to keep it. See also WP:NOT, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". In order to illustrate my point of view, I'll use a couple of examples of other pages; The article on death contains an image contains a black-and white image of a dead body - but not a close-up colour image of a rotting corpse, even though that's clearly relevant. Similarly, the wikipedia article on torture contains a drawing of someone being tortured on a rack - but not a video of someone being whipped - again, that would be relevant to the topic. My point is that even though that content would be relevant, it wouldn't provide information on the topic that can't already be gathered from the images and text that are there. So in this article, I'd say that even though the image under discussion is relevant, that doesn't automatically make it suitable for inclusion; the information it contains is already represented elsewhere in the article. So why not remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.91.118 (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • In regards to your example of the article on death: no indeed, because that belongs in the article on decomposition. --Saerain (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • No censorship, please. The mention being made to children being able to see this is misguided, at best. The policing of children belongs at the home or school at the computer they use to access the world wide web. I would not have known the extent that necrotic bites can take, or their appearance, or the fact that they sometimes result in amputations, were not for the inclusion of this helpful photo -a picture is worth a thousand words-. Wikipedia is already pretty bogus as it is. Don't make it more so by making it please everyone! 146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've long been for freedom on wiki and argued for it, this debate is always brought up on various articles relating to human body parts etc. But I have to admit that after seeing this second image I am beggining to change my mind, this is just not right that you might be interested in learning about a subject and have no idea that its so horrid the you get bombarded with such images that disturb you for quite a while. Now I'm a strong guy and I do often watch documentaries with plenty of what could be considered disturbing footage but I'm always prepared because I know what's ahead of me, but when search for a term and are interested to learn about it your really just not prepared and it will disturb you. I strongly suggest removing the second image or turning it into a drop down, its just too extreme! --A Gooner (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sac Spider

Sac spiders are practically global and are not located in the US and Australia alone. Is it that the American and Australian varieties are the only ones thought to cause necrosis? If sac spiders are generally suspected of this, the article is misleading in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.99.139 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

disturbing image (second roudnel)

I don't think Wikipedia should include images that may cause some people to vomit.--ILoveSky (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too bad. How else do you show what this actually is? In fact, at least half the value of the article (IMHO) is the picture. Wikipedia's job is to show the *real* world, not some happy friendly world. If that's what you were expecting, you're in the wrong place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.146.205 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not put them in drop down boxes then? The people who want to see it can acces the picture, people just here for the actual information can ignore them. This wouldn't really be censorship (as someone tried to point out), as the pictures are still easily accesible on this very page. 79.203.64.8 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • No censorship, please. The mention being made to children being able to see this is misguided, at best. The policing of children belongs at the home or school at the computer they use to access the world wide web. I would not have known the extent that necrotic bites can take, or their appearance, or the fact that they sometimes result in amputations, were not for the inclusion of this helpful photo -a picture is worth a thousand words-. BTW, vomiting or not vomiting is NOT in any criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion of any content! Wikipedia is already pretty bogus as it is. Don't make it more so by making it please everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia isn't a shock site either. There is an article about vaginal leaks, yet it doesn't show leaking vaginas.--194.3.247.4 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Caption Under Picture may be incorrect

According to Hoax-Slayer.Com Article Re: Brown Recluse Spider Bites, an entomologist from UC writes:

Despite the fact that lots of people believe that brown recluses are deadly, there are only about 8 reported deaths from possible brown recluse bites in the medical literature, Philip Anderson states that there is still not one VERIFIED death from a brown recluse bite and none of the alleged fatal cases are convincing.

Given that - it would make more sense to change the images description to read, "An Example of Necrosis" and leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesurbius (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question and the answer is pretty obvious, but I can't seem to find this ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Nekrose_dekubitus01.jpg ) kind of necrosis described; how it is caused and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.91.82 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommend protection

This article was psuedo-linked to in the alternate text of XKCD. My recommendation is that it should be protected to prevent vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.189.201 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection is not pre-emptive (WP:NO-PREEMPT). At the risk of speaking too soon, the xkcd reference doesn't seem to have generated any vandalism (yet) and the comic has been live for (probably) getting on for 24h now. The page has quite a few watchers. If there's sustained vandalism it's possible to apply for semi-protection. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you'll see any vandalism. The XKCD ref didn't encourage such, and his audience isn't exactly the Colbert Nation 97.114.186.113 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides that, xkcd is not 4chan. It is a nerdy comic about math, physic and sometimes love, not necessarily the fields of interest of a troll/vandal. --217.238.172.80 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't stopped articles from being vandalized by mere mention on XKCD anyway. It's not as bad as the Colbert Nation, but it's close. Putnam (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell took care of it; I decided not to earlier, but I guess no big deal. That comic is no longer on top, so one day should more than cover it. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, how on earth is that semi-protect justified? We have one single instance of vandalism here since the XKCD comic. One. How is that "heavy and continued"? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

dunno what the exact criteria are, but it would seem to be "heavy and continued" across the breadth of articles xkcd mentions.24.13.125.86 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It still feels like a disproportionate response to a problem that wasn't really there, to me. Never mind. It was done in good faith and the semi-protect has expired now. Time to draw a line and move on, I think. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

xkcd Reference?

The webcomic xkcd has referenced this page. Should it be linked in an "In Popular Culture" or something section?

Comic can be found here, in the alt-text: http://xkcd.com/825/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.20.53 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no. The reference was to the wikipedia page, not to necrosis itself. I wonder if there's a tag for the talk page though, something like "this page was referenced by the following TV episode, web comic, film, whatever"? I know we have one for "this page was used as a source for a news agency". Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Arachnogenic Necrosis section, non-sequitur

Will a real editor please stand up? "Spider bites are cited as causing necrosis in some areas, but such claims are widely disputed. In the US, only brown recluse spiders (genus Loxosceles) have been proven to consistently cause necrosis.[1] ...

Claims of necrosis caused by other spiders' bites are common, but supporting evidence is lacking... A few spiders commonly suspected (but not conclusively proven) of having necrotic venom include:

Hobo spider in Northwestern United States[4]

Recluse spider"

Which one is it? Are recluse spiders "proven to consistently cause necrosis" or "suspected (but not conclusively proven) of having necrotic venom"? The link "Recluse spider" above, when followed, actually contradicts the very sentence in which it is referenced! How could anyone seriously "cite" wikipedia? 146.23.68.40 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)