Talk:Gangrene

Pictures...

I came across this page as I was swallowing an orange slice. Perhaps it would be prudent to put a warning on the page so readers can brace themselves before seeing the decaying toes? I am not sure how to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.23.134 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 May 2005

Most definately... UGH! The second image didn't even look like a foot!

TurtleShroom! :) ^†Jesus Loves You and Died for you!^† 00:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, it would be better if there were just links to the pictures and a warning that they are not suitable for sensible [= sensitive?] people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.28.152 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 June 2005

Why are you going to an informative web page about gangrene while eating an orange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.135.128 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 June 2005

Guys, Wikipedia has had numerous votes about unappetising pictures and others not suitable for everybody. On the whole, the vote always ends up that pictures should not be linked. Sorry. Use Wikipedia at your own risk. JFW | T@lk 19:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cesium_133 01:45 31 July 2005 (EDT): This is wiki, folks... all knowledge should be free and evident here. Pics that are nasty but relevant have a place here, especially if medical in nature...

Can the pictures at least go beneath the "fold" ie. where a user of at least 1024x768 would have to scroll down to see them, coupled with a warning at the top of the page? Drw25 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Put the images in a row across the bottom of the page? Anthony Appleyard 05:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The pictures are fine, albeit shocking; but seriously, people should expect this when researching gangrene ( seriously though, still: EW ) 128.195.94.157 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The images are disturbing, to everyone. Please put in a warning at the top of the screen or at least put the pictures at the bottom of the page. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifan160 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 22 August 2006

Uh. While this IS medical, I personally think that was sick. The last one wasn't THAT bad... the middle was just plain WRONG, and I almost puked when I saw the first one. Poor, poor Houdini, he musta puked whenever he saw his feet. *shudder* I feel sorry for whoever was swallowing an orange slice. :( At least you don't have a BIG BLUE STUB where your BIG TOE is, or a ROTTING GREEN FOOT! *gag* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.94.240 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 November 2006

I also agree that the pictures aught to go at the bottom of the page so that one has the option of reading the article without having to see the images. Ggrzw83 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the tag "This article contains photographs that some people may find disturbing", was that i was too busy being horrified by the gangrenous toe to see it! I've got a 1280x1024 resolution, though. - Nasta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.193.144 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 6 December 2006

Those images are disgusting. I have a 1280x1024 resolution and I almost puked when I saw them. I got linked here from Peter the Great and wasn't expecting it. Guess it can stay though, as it does have some medical standing. --Kupo03 04:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I got here from Powerpuff Girls! I'm glad I'd finished my supper before I saw this. --Das654 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Will someone please move the picture closer to the bottom of the page? Not for the sake of censorship, but because it is distracting to the reader. The picture itself is an excellent example of the affliction, but it makes the page less readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirShazar (talk • contribs) 03:34, 25 March 2007

Someone tried the warning and got it removed. I think in this case, citing WP:CENSOR does not apply here. TV shows rated M don't censor the profanity, but they offer a warning before the show starts. ALTON .ıl 04:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are y'all females? Leave the pictures as they're very, very educative. I don't know what the hell is wrong with seeing one. Sabertooth 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As a boy of 12 I was reading a synopsis of slaughterhouse 5 and came here via a link. And let me tell you it is very disturbing for a 12 year old boy to see a picture of a pussed out rotting foot. The least you guys could have done is put a warning on top of the page. Now it's too late and I've been scarred for life (seriously). And to "Sabertooth" Wikipedia is supposed cater for all audiences regardless of gender, if you think those pictures are educative and theres nothing wrong with seeing them why don't you bring them to an middle school biology class and see what kind of reaction you get?

Stan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.208.217 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 May 2007

PS I edited the article by putting the 2 pictures on the bottom of the page and added a warning on top of the page. If anyone disagrees with the changes made please state you objections below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.208.217 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 May 2007

Yeah, that picture of the diabetic with gangrene looked YUMMY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.210 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 August 2007

Added warning again. Please be clear of people removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.114.237 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No disclaimers in articles. This article in particular was one of the reasons that resulted in a major change to that guideline. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You people are completely lacking commonsense! Wikipedia is now used by many people. We can't put this kind of pictures without a warning. C'mon, it doesn't take much brain to see that such rules should be adapted in extreme cases (and these pictures are indeed extreme - either change the picture or put a clear warning). I'm putting it again, your legalistic argument doesn't hold water against the _fact_ that these pictures are definitely unpresentable to the mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.114.237 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That guideline was instituted by a community consensus. As I said, the repeated insertion of content warnings into this article was one of the main reasons for an expansion of that rule. If you don't want to see pictures of gangrene, don't go to Gangrene. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually try to stay out of these edit wars, but I see this as a real dilemma. On one hand, WP:NDA is policy, or close to it anyway, and it says clearly that disclaimers should be automatically removed. On the other hand, not one of the reasons listed in the "Why they should not be used" section applies here. Since some people seem to feel strongly that the disclaimer should be there, and I see no valid reason to remove it, I think it should stay. And before anyone spouts off Wikipedia is not censored instead of replying with a well-reasoned argument, I'll just say that a disclaimer does not equal censorship. --Joelmills (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of the rule if we just ignore it, even if people disagree with doing so? This is covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that is why the rule exists. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that disclaimers not being the same thing as censorship is yet another reason that we have WP:NDA in addition to WP:NOT#CENSOR. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not going to win this argument, because as you said, consensus is against me. However, quoting the style guidline at the top of WP:NDA, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." And common sense is telling me that a little heads up at the top of the article regarding disturbing images at the bottom is not going to harm anything. It may even help people. I would like to hear another reason for excluding it. The content disclaimer is not even directly linked to the article, you have to go through Wikipedia:General disclaimer. And who reads those things anyway? I've been reading Wikipedia for a long time, and today is the first day I've ever looked at the disclaimer. I respect your opinion, but I'm not convinced.

I should add that I agree that WP:NDA is correct in almost every other case. --Joelmills (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

imo another reason would be that it would be an unreasonable person who, using an encyclopedia on a media rich medium, was upset to see examples. If they can't cope with the facts, they shouldn't be looking these things up on any medium. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why this article is so different from similar medical articles (especially ones related to sex organs) that it should warrant a disclaimer. Mr.Z-man 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons, I think. First, in my mind there is a difference between being offended by seeing a sexual organ and being disturbed by a violent or "gross" image. Some people can have a pretty bad reaction depending on how sensitive they are. Second and more important, the difference between this article and another one with a potentially disturbing image is that someone has put a disclaimer on this article. I wouldn't have put a disclaimer on this article, but someone else has felt it is a good idea and I am reluctant to remove it. --Joelmills (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The photos posted are VERY disturbing. Not warning about the graphic nature of these photos is simply cruel and mean-spirited. There is no rule in the world for which not a single exception can be found, and this is an obvious example of such a necessary exception. Additionally, perhaps the rule against disclaimers should be revisited since this is such a perfect example of the fact that disclaimers do indeed have a place on wikipedia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2008

I agree, and have added the warning again. Anyone with enough logic to make 1+1 can see this is not a form of censorship. IMHO, the lower picture should be enclosed in some sort of javascript tag that shows/hides it upon pressure of a button, and be hidden by default. We can be informative and exhaustive without being graphically explicit. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, not to a restricted set of iron-stomached professionals. --81.1.114.237 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules, this is not the way to do it. If you feel the rule is unfair, you are more than welcome to start a wider discussion on the Village Pump. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need a long discussion for something so simple. Warnings exists also elsewhere on wikipedia. Heck, I'm not even asking to REMOVE the pictures, just to warn the people about them! They are objectively disturbing to anyone who is not a professional in the field. --87.80.128.218 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A disclaimer is something that says we're not responsible for blah blah, but what if there was just a warning at the top of the page, or on any links, that said there were some possibly offensive/disturbing images on the page 24.182.202.236 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just use a DIFFERENT pictures with the same effect in terms of learning and informations, but which is not as disgusting as that one? --87.80.128.218 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look in Wikimedia Commons at the other gangrene pictures, but I wouldn't recommend it. The ones that we have are very illustrative - I wouldn't change them. --Joelmills (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you find them disgusting is your point of view. Please understand that different people have different points of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Given that you can't cope with the level of detail, why are you using an encyclopedia ? Why, one year on, are you still arguing against Wikipedia consensus ? Do you think that your views are more important than the majority ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 07:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More relativist nerdness. Your statement "you find them disgusting is your point of view" is utter bullshit. You sir, utterly lack common sense and humanity. Just because you don't have, others who happen to stumble here should pay the consequence? --87.80.128.218 (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Sabertooth, what the fuck do you mean by, "Are all y'all females"?! What the fuck is wrong with you? When I saw the pictures, all I did was gag a little. You people are guys and saying you wanna censor it, link to it, and put it at the bottom of the page. Think before you type, motherfucker. 70.119.54.117 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He was trying to get a rise out of people like you, and he was clearly successful. As for the pictures, I think they're perfectly appropriate, and frankly not very disturbing. I find the pictures of masochism on some pages extremely disturbing, but a rotting foot? No, not really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.226.138 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is gangrene found in the world? I mean in what countries? please answer ASAP

Worldwide, but the causes differ. In Europe it's smoking diabetics, but in the Third World it's Clostridium, Lepra etc. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gangrene is not a disease but the end result of tissue death. There is no 'boundary' for this and the pictures were taken in New England this past summer. It crosses all socio-economic boundaries. Most gangrene in the extremities is seen as a result of loss of circulation and an inability of the tissue to repair. Much of it in the United States is a result of diabetes, some of atherosclerosis either related to diabetes or hypercholesterolemia or cold injury.

DrGnu 00:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it happens to soldiers, too, as a result of untreated gunshot wounds. 93.219.190.248 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

death as a result of gangrene

I have a friend who has just been told he has gangrene in his leg. It has been unusable for the past three years as the result of a stroke. He is in the hospital and has been told he has gangrene and is too weak to live through amputation or vein grafting. Is there any other treatment? Do we have to sit back and watch him die?

I'm not going to second guess the vascular surgeons who are watching over him. Alas the gangrene is most likely a result of insufficient blood supply. I've got a patient now who has been nearly 19 months with antibiotic therapy and local wound care who has not progressed much ... the question always is quality of life. I do suggest this be taken to a medicine FORUM rather than wiki. DrGnu

Copyright violation

Most of this article was based on content taken from http://txtx.essortment.com/whatisgangrene_rejx.htm and dumped there by User:134.148.20.1 at the start of October 2004. I've reverted to the last revision that doesn't have this content. Edward 00:57, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I've put back most of the removed content via paraphrase and other non-copying methods. Also, whole paragraphs which are not in the copyvio source were reinserted. grendel|khan 03:43, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Testimonial

My uncle almost died from internal gangrene. He was having pain for a long time and did not tell anyone. One day the pain became so bad he told my grandparents and he was rushed to the hospital. The doctors said if he had waited another day he would have died. Now it is about three years later and he is still living.

Thankfully. "Gangrene" is not really used for that specific condition. Mesenteric ischemia is in use. Indeed, necrosis of the gut is a medical emergency as pathogens from the intestine mount a septic reaction. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Literature?

Can someone provide information for further research in scientific books about that topic? I'd need some text sources for a thesis. This could be included in the article as well, I guess. Thanks!

Useful and comprehensive "source" documents on gas gangrene include:

Report of the Anaerobic Infections of Wounds and the Bacteriological and Serological Problems Arising Therefrom - Medical Research Committee, London 1919 (A comprehensive review of clinical presentation, treatment, incidence, bacteriology and serology) written in the light of the WW1 experience.

The Histotoxic Clostridial Infections of Man, JD MacLennan, 1962, Bacteriol Rev 26:177-276 (JD MacLennan was an RAMC pathologist working in Nth Africa and Italy in WW2.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.83.21.221 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 24 March 2006

Warning of Disturbing Pics at Top?

I'm going to put this warning at the top of the page, in case someone has a really large monitor and sees the pictures without scrolling. -- Dantecubed 05:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? JFW | T@lk 15:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Gas gangrene

Many people have heard of gas gangrene and that the bacterium Clostridium perfringens (formerly called Clostridium welchii) causes it. This sort of gangrene needs to be included in Gangrene by someone who knows the subject. Is gas gangrene a sort of wet gangrene, or of dry gangrene, or neither, or what? Anthony Appleyard 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I created the gas gangrene page. Think it is a large enough subject to have its own article. --WS 22:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the merge. Zargulon 07:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone notice that the "Treatment" sections for Gas Grangrene and Regular Gangrene are almost exactly the same? And that, in essence, gas gangrene can probably be considered wet more than dry and is clearly an evolution of basic gangrene. Not including it seems...well...like not including "Flamemon" in the "Takuya Kanbara" article.

So, this would probably be te one time i could agree with the whole idea of "merging" on wikipedia.

Still, I'm more in support of multiple articles than merging, so maybe someone should just write a stronger reference to "Gas Gangrene" in the meantime?

Ace Class Shadow 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Smilepossum: I am in favour of the merge and have replied to tell you that wet gangrene and gas gangrene are one and the same and that it is just a paraphrase. I also put in the article that Gangrene is cause by clostridium Perfringens and that gangrene call also cause necrosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.68.101 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 March 2006

10:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Class Shadow (talk • contribs) 21:28, 14 March 2006

• There's quite a large separate article in German on gas gangrene - maybe someone could add to the current English article by translating it, whether or not the merge takes place. Saint|swithin 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge, per WS. --Arcadian 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

i came across this topic studying for the medical boards. i'm not infavor of the merege, but i dont know if i knwo enough about the topic to count. gangrene is a general term describing death or decay of a tissue because of lack of oxygen. no necessarily result of infection. gas gangrene is (uniquely) caused by clostridium bacteria, and (uniquely) has gas bubbles in the decayed tissue. a prevelant type of gangrene but not the only kind and NOT the definition of gangerene at all. anyone can delete this whole thing if i'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.115.233 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 June 2006

I am not in favor of the merge either. Also, if you are looking up gas gangrene you shouldn't be shocked to find pictures that show examples. It is certainly not a pleasing pathological experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.47.90 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 July 2006

• I'm strongly opposed to merge. They are two different conditions. Gas gangrene is a condition caused within gangrene tissue, and is a result of a bacterial infection, that's all the physiological simililarity they share. I work with C. perfringens every day, in normal conditions, they have nothing to do with gangrene. A mention about gas gangrene and a link to the article is all that should be included in the gangrene article. Alperyasar 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Apparently, any mention of Gas gangrene has been removed from the article- I have reinserted the section on it. If anyone thinks that this should be trimmed down to a link, I would support that too. --70.236.28.238 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dry Gangrene

I am 57 years old male and a diabetic for the last 3 years. I am taking 'Daonil', an oral pill, twice a day to keep blood sugar under check but it hovers between 100 and 150. My doctor says it is ok. I do not have visible signs except that I have lost interest in sex. About 10 days back on May 01, I fell down in the bathroom and hurt my left foot and left side of the rib cage. There is no cut however any where. For the first few days I had quite a big pain at both places, however, now the pain has reduced considerably. It means it is healing though I still have some pain. There is NO visible sign of any damage to my foot except for a little swelling which is receding day by day. Now, I want to know if there is any chance of developing dry gangrene on my left foot. Please help me with information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollys (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 May 2006

Gas gangrene and dry gangrene are both very different things... the rate of progression and the pathology if it make it two different beasts. Gas gangrene is a viable enough subject to have its own heading...i know that is how i ended up here... looking up gas gangrene specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.47.90 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2006

I see the argument of those of you who maintain that gas gangrene should be its own entity, but they are both types of gangrene. Also, both entries are stubs, and with the lack of available information, it's difficult for the article to stand alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwazi (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 September 2006

This was posted in the article--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Need Help - I am 57 years old male and a diabetic for the last 3 years. I am taking 'Daonil', an oral pill, twice a day to keep blood sugar under check but it hovers between 100 and 150. My doctor says it is ok. I do not have visible signs except that I have lost interest in sex. About 10 days back on May 01, I fell down in the bathroom and hurt my left foot and left side of the rib cage. There is no cut however any where. For the first few days I had quite a big pain at both places, however, now the pain has reduced considerably. It means it is healing though I still have some pain. There is NO visible sign of any damage to my foot except for a little swelling which is receding day by day. Now, I want to know if there is any chance of developing dry gangrene on my left foot. Please help me with information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFish (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 May 2006

Recently added

I'm pretty new at all this, especially creating boxes. I did create a warning box, but it isn't the greatest. If anyone can make it better, please do. --66.218.22.187 05:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just agreeing to merge it...

I agree that gas gangrene, as it is gangrene and already included therein, should be merged. Count me as "aye" in favour of the motion... :) thx... Cesium... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesium 133 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 July 2006

gangrene and heroin addiction?

I recently watched the film Requiem for a dream, which features someone losing an arm to gangrene, caused by injecting heroin. Is this common? Is it wet or dry gangrene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.0.90 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 September 2006

I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems logical that the necrosis induced by heroin injection is caused by a bacterial infection in either the needle or the heroin sample. By definition, this is a case of wet gangrene. you a monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwazi (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 September 2006

where did gangrene orginate from?

where was the fist "outbreak" found? 76.194.34.241 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gangrene isn't caused by a bacterium or a virus, so it's not really meaningful to ask where the "first outbreak" occurred. It's been known at least since antiquity, and presumably it was known when our distant ancestors were injured somehow and noticed their flesh rotting off. Asking where gangrene originated is like asking where bruises or broken bones originated. grendel|khan 19:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This article contain photographs that you may find disturbing

That line at the top of the article should really be removed. Wikipedia is not censored. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we'll just revert war over it. That works too. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You retards, of course wikipedia is not censored, but proper warnings should be applied to certain articles for the benefit of the general viewers. Case and point: Spoiler warnings...OOO lets remove them wikipedia is not censored. Idiotic sadistic nerds.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.219.156 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 May 2007

Be civil and don't make personal attacks. Thanks. ~ UBeR 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone please explain to me how putting up a warning, or having a click-through warning, is censorship. No material is even removed. -- Northgrove 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I echo the question of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.218.212 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 June 2007 also edited by 72.200.107.232 (talk • contribs) on 00:20, 5 October 2007

I agree as well. "Warning" is not "censoring". The tag at the top of this page is unadequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.128.218 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - if I said what I thought about the people who say spoiler warnings / image warnings are bad for Wikipedia, I would probably end up getting a ban for using personal attacks (the Internet is serious business, eh?) ugen64 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Edit

{{Editprotected}}
There is a double image of a decaying foot, one at the top of the page and one at the bottom. I think that someone should fix this. -Lεmσηflαsh^(t)/_(c) 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the one at the bottom that is extra. --Joelmills 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen disulphide (HG)??? (Dry gangrene section)

Is there a reference for this? I was surprised that it was the disulphide mentioned, not the sulphide, and I can't imagine what the "HG" refers to. Anyone? Xarqi (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I did a google search and came up with this website and under types of post-mortem changes it mentions the production of hydrogen sulfide i.e. H₂S by bacteria including its combination with iron from Hb to form iron sulfide. As far as I can tell the acronym HG has no meaning so I'm going to go ahead and change "hydrogen disulfide (HG)" to "hydrogen sulfide (H₂S)" and chuck in a reference from the above website. --Marshmellis (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for pictures

On some pages, pictures that some people may find objectionable are in boxes with a label of what the picture is, and you have to click on "Show Picture" to actually see the picture. I think this could be done for this page; you wouldn't have to link out to the pictures, and they'd still be there for anyone who actually wants to see them. 74.222.97.62 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this idea has been brought up before on multiple occasions, but evidently our "encyclopedic mission" or whatever ends up trumping common sense... it's a trend I've noticed on this site recently. ugen64 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, common sense is that in an article about gangrene there will be pictures of gangrene. Wikipedia is not censored. —Lowellian (reply) 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a daft and, if I may say so, juvenile argument. I may have an interest in reading about gangrene without wanting to be grossed out. For example, the article on gangrene in my Encyclopaedia Britannica does not even have a picture, yet is arguably more informative and authoritative than this one. We should not use WP:NOTCENSORED to shoehorn the grossest images we can find into articles. Editorial judgment consists of more than enjoying shock value. --JN466 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make this usable for any future discussion, I am in favour of replacing the really extreme pictures we currently have with a link to the relevant Commons category, and putting any images that are still likely to make some readers sick enough to flee the page before they have even read the article into a collapsed gallery, so they can exercise a choice whether they want to view the images or not, after they have read the text. --JN466 23:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is how medical experts (I am tempted to write mature, knowledgeable adults) present information on gangrene to the general public: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. These are all from the first page of google results for gangrene. Our article is the only one from that google results page that looks like an exhibit from a cabinet of horrors. --JN466 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the above at the parent Content noticeboard thread (originally unrelated to this article),[7] beginning with "I'll counter with [8], [9], [10], [11]...." See also MOS:COLLAPSE and my comments below. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Han Solo?

what exactly does Han Solo have to do with Gangrene? Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor

Product advertising - Septiloc

The blurb for Septiloc® has no place in this article. It is a name brand product by Venus that contains cupric sulphate. This addition makes unsubstantiated claims that it is effective againt gangrene, but offers no citation.163.151.2.10 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Daisy

Image hiding dispute

A thread, originally about "Cock and ball torture", posted at the Content noticeboard, has hit upon this article and targeted its images to be hidden in a gallery.[12] I disputed this there, but unfortunately one normally reliable inclusionist made the mistake of giving in and calling that a "compromise". I have reverted the change, which would separate the wet gangrene photo from wet gangrene and likewise for the dry, on the basis of MOS:COLLAPSE, which looks like a clear-cut and long-established guideline to me. Unfortunately for editors here, it seems like the Content noticeboard has started an edit war here, rather than ending one somewhere else. Wnt (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE is a guideline, not a policy: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Let's use common sense and not force these extreme images down readers' throats. Besides, the text of this article is rather poor and incomplete; I'll do some work on it. --JN466 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep using the "common sense" argument and willfully ignoring that common sense is that in an article about gangrene, there will be and should be pictures of gangrene. —Lowellian (reply) 17:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is, however, policy. Collapsing sections for the sake of navigation is acceptable if frowned-upon; doing so to avoid offending is not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving the reader the opportunity to view the image in their own sweet time is not censorship. Besides, we also have such a thing as editorial judgment. Please don't argue on the basis of NOTCENSORED, argue on the basis of the image's usefulness to the reader. --JN466 15:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, the reason that we illustrate articles at all is because images are "useful to the reader". The argument against doing so by default here (the squick factor) is no more applicable than it is on the dozens / hundreds of other articles we have on the subjects of sex / disease / religion which reaffirmed NOTCENSORED in the first place. If you want another precedent which is applicable here, take our stance on spoilers in fiction articles; the community consensus is that we don't hide text which can serve as a spoiler, or do anything to prevent readers from accidentally discovering advanced plot details, even though it would be trivial to do so and allow them to access them at their discretion ("their own sweet time"). I don't see any argument here which counters the generally-accepted consensus on both of these points. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We are supposed to follow the model of reliable sources. I have found no general introduction to gangrene -- either on the web or in books -- that uses atypical images from cases where the disease is as far advanced as it is in two of our images. They are needlessly over the top and depict a stage of the disease which is not usually seen, as the vast majority of people seek treatment and are helped well before that stage. We should show the types of symptoms that people are most likely to encounter, and upon sight of which they should promptly seek medical help. Doing otherwise is simply bad editorial judgment. --JN466 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)--JN466 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

These are images of gangrene. If you do not want to see gangrene or learn about gangrene do not search for it. This applies to both here and google [13]. I do not think we should hide these images. I should not need to hit another button to show my patients what happens if they do not stop smoking. Have any of you see the cigarette packages in Canada? [14] I have by the way seen a fair number of cases such as in the pictures. The images that one would see before this stage are not gangrene. ie. Gangrene is always severe.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at RS illustrations of general introductions to gangrene, on the web and in google books. I couldn't find a single one that had a photo comparable to the two presently in the gallery. [15], [16], [17] are typical examples of illustrations I did find. --JN466 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Feeling that the images in question present too extreme an example of the subject to be illustrative is quite a different matter from suggesting that the general issue of illustration here requires hiding. Which is it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The former. My concern related to the second and third images; if readers flee the page without reading the text, we have failed at our job. By the way, the text and sourcing is none too brilliant. I've started doing some work on it, but if someone from the WikiProject has time to have a go, please do. --JN466 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a distinctly minority position, not only here but across the encyclopedia as a whole. This is well-established. I don't consider there to be any need for a "compromise" position which essentially performs the hiding function here based on what is still essentially one editor's judgement call. The images should be moved back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We should follow the approaches used in reliable sources. If the RS sources I looked at were unrepresentative, I am willing to revise my opinion, but preferences within the community are neither here nor there: we all know that our demographics are skewed in favour of single, young, childless males. --JN466 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE indicates that navigation boxes and the like may be collapsed, but should not be used to hide article content, particularly as this might not be viewable on devices which do not support JavaScript and/or CSS (consider also that Wikipedia 1.0 on DVD, or printed out copies). The top infobox image is not extreme - having gone to the article after reading this discusson thread first, it is in fact rather tame and not untypical - the effort to get those with diabetes to control their sugars and self-care for their feet, or urge smokes with peripheral vascular disease to quit is to reduce the occurance of such serious complications. For elderly patients with underlying health problems, amputation is traumatic emotionally as well as physically, and is not always survivable (the top image might need limited resection, the extensive gangrene in the gallery boxes likely to need below knee, if not above knee, amputation). As for additional images, I don't have any great copyediting view as to where they are placed (provided visible to those without reliance on CSS) given that infobox already includes a clear and typical example. David Ruben ^Talk 21:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the infobox image. Placing the other two images in an (uncollapsed) gallery, per User:Jmh649, is a compromise I can live with. --JN466 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What perplexes me is that this compromise doesn't involve hiding the content (which I thought was the point of contention), yet disrupts the structure of the article. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I though this improved the structure of the article rather than disrupted it :-) It decreases distraction from the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the arguments. I'll just say that, in my opinion, the images should remain viewable without collapsible boxes or other means of "hiding" them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the images should remain viewable without collapsible boxes. Immunize (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied enough to avoid having the images hidden - I won't argue further with the "real" editors of this article, especially Doc James for whom I have much respect, about where exactly to put them. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you people?!

Are you people lunatics? You understand that these gangrene pictures that are in plain, nearly-unavoidable sight in this article are very graphic, don't you? At what point did that strike you as a good idea? Now, I understand that Wikipedia doesn't remove content just because someone—or lots of someones—think it to be offensive, and that's a good thing, but... you know, it's not actually censorship to just put that disgusting shit in an expand/collapse box so people don't need to be bludgeoned with it when they come here to read the article....

Through this incredibly innovative idea of mine, no content would be getting removed; it's just that it wouldn't be there to visually gouge your eyes out when you're trying to do some innocent reading. Additionally, that picture at the top should be moved down to the gallery and put into an expand/collapse box with the rest. (Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?) Judging from everything that's been said here, it sure looks like plenty of people—myself included—came here to read about gangrene, and not necessarily to see it. It doesn't really do anyone any harm—and, in fact, seems to be doing a whole lot less harm than is currently being done—to hide the pictures unless they're specifically asked for. Seriously, this isn't that hard to figure out.... Just because the people with the power to make this ruling are comfortable with the images, that doesn't mean that everyone else is and that they should be overtly displayed. Common sense and empathy for other human beings should likely override whatever fucking grand nonsense crusade you people think you're on.... --98.220.224.164 (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved the picture that was at the top down to the gallery. --68.103.31.159 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely when people look up afflictions like gangrene, they know that they're going to come across picture like this and they should steel themselves for it. You google it and you'll get the same pictures popping up automatically. If you're of such a delicate disposition that you fly off the handle at a picture of gangrene on an article about gangrene, then you need to get off the internet. Not being harsh, but calm down. 90.192.177.142 (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to the party - but perhaps some people *don't* know what gangrene is before they look it up. Say they're, I don't know, doing an assignment for school on WW1 and don't know what the word means. --Kick the cat (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you'll get pictures like this if you type "gangrene" into a Google images search. Do I come to an encyclopedia for pictures? I come for information! I want to read about gangrene. If I want to see abhorrent pictures, I'll go to Google and type in "disgusting gangrene pictures". I'm thinking that you don't understand why people come to Wikipedia, nor the purpose of an encyclopedia to begin with.... --98.220.224.164 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that even article on Goatse—which is, obviously, an article simply created because of an image—doesn't have a picture of Goatse on it, and Goatse's nowhere near as repugnant as looking at a person whose leg is falling off. Maybe you should get that picture up there, since everyone needs to see pictures of what a given article is about. That's part of the grand Wikipedian mission! --98.220.224.164 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree; when I saw the first image (of the toe) I promptly vomited and I just spent two hours to clean up the mess. I just wanted textual information, I didn't think and couldn't have anticipated that the editors would be so callous to have images like that in plain sight. I didn't even know gangrene looked that disgusting, nor what kind of disease it was really. The images should be hidden, maybe with some kind of "click to expand" mechanism. The editors of the article know that the images are unnecessary for most readers to get information on the subject, and that almost everyone here agrees that the images should not be displayed like they are now, so when I remove them they should behave like mature adults and leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit for two reasons: A) you've censored images relevant to the article's subject matter; this is a Wikipedia [{WP:POLICY|policy]], and states that articles should be based on subject matter and not personal opinions of or reactions to content. B) you removed the images without consensus; there are more editors in this thread opposed to removing these images than there are for. Discuss the issue here before editing again. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It took you two hours to clean up your vomit? Did you really think that hyperbole made your argument any more reasonable? 76.28.114.215 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather amused at the people who look up gangrene and then don't want to see the pictures of it and then swear and curse because they got upset. Getting upset is an important part of life and does have purpose. Why not learn about yourself from this rather than wanting everyone else to be as horrified. Personally I like to be informed and came to this page for a valid reason and want as much information as possible. Illustrations help. But then I'm not queasy. But when it comes to looking at things I don't like then I look away or switch off... easy as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.183.107.202 (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm myself not a native English speaker and didn't know what gangrene means. I was looking for the word as it was mentioned in a book I was reading (without it being further described). Now I was shocked by the top picture (though it does illustrate the condition rather unforgettably and graphically), and it makes it rather difficult to read this article while using one hand to cover the pictures. Don't remove any photos for me (I can live with them, and I see their educational value), but please try to understand where the people with arguments for a warming for illustrations may be coming from. I certainly do. 58.182.197.149 (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Causes?

In war novels it says that it's often caused by broken limbs. Is this true, and if so, why isn't it in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Because war novels are not WP:RS. Novels are fiction, although it may be true that gangrene can be caused by broken limbs in real life you need a reliable source to add it to the article.Uweido (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shock site?

Is there a shock site whose URL is www.gangrene.com? --68.103.31.159 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Really?

I just moved the picture of the gangrenous toes to the bottom gallery, and you moved it back to the top! >:( --68.103.31.159 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)