Talk:Necrosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Pathology / Toxicology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Physiologic Necrosis[edit]

I think that what should be added is a section here that talks about physiologic necrosis or programmed necrosis, which actually does appear in in the literature. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20390367 Does anyone have any remarks about that? IsaacD (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to [1] and [2] and many other sources from 2010 or so, necrosis (or necroptosis) is a Programmed cell death. נטע (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mercury?[edit]

I'm confused by the bit on mercury. Is there a reason why it deserves special mention, rather than just being an example of a poison?Lstearns90 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oncosis vs. necrosis?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Counter Strike References[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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? Qpweortiyu (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2012 (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)

I find the example of death and decomposition helpful. Death is a physical event which can be understood without a graphic depiction of rotting: decomposition can't be. The picture discussed here is also used on the article for the Bothrops Asper pit viper, and I actually find that quite useful. Seeing that picture, I understand that I am reading about an extremely deadly venomous snake. However, the process of necrosis in itself can be understood without the more graphic image, and I think that a substitution for a less graphic image, or maybe a set of drawings depicting different stages and severities of necrosis, would be equally or even more instructive.ScSabella (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

+1 for sticking it behind a drop-down box clearly labeled as explicit and extreme. It isn't censorship to offer readers a choice as to whether or not they want to see something as grotesque and disturbing as that picture, rather than forcing it on them unexpectedly. I've been using Wikipedia since 2003 or 2004, and this is the first time I've ever been so upset by an image that I've felt compelled to weigh in on the Talk page. Maybe I'm not as inured to imagery of this type as some of the others who've commented, maybe I'm just a sensitive sort-- but that image is going to bother me for some time, and I'm not looking forward to trying to get to sleep tonight. Additionally, responding to "A picture is worth 1,000 words"- I'm intelligent enough that I could have understood the seriousness of a necrotic infection from the article text; I don't need somebody else asserting that I need to see a picture to understand the gravity of such an infection. Bottom line: don't force people to see something like this without a warning; that's as offensive as it would be to actually censor it by removing it completely from the article. 66.87.7.15 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NOTCENSORED: However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. So, how is the second image (with the disturbing sight of the totally black and eaten-away lower leg of a boy) relevant to the content? What information does it add? That whole limbs can be affected, and that those might have to be amputated? This can be done more appropriately in the text. That a necrotic limb can be a disturbing sight? This information is not relevant for the article. So there is no reason to keep this picture.--Biologos (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments from Biologos and ScSabella above. WP:IMAGES states: Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. The information content of the image is contained within the text of the article, and there appears to be a substantial proportion (probably a slight majority) of comments from people on this talk page who find it obscene (in the sense of disgusting to the senses rather than morally offensive).Kosmoceras (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AGREED -- with the OP here, that image should be placed in a drop down, be labeled something like "Severe Necrosis Progression -- disturbing image", and hidden unless the user wants to view it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkkelf99 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(quote from far, far above): It's not the norm on Wikipedia to use click-down boxes to hide disturbing images
If it's not the "norm" to use click-down boxes to hide disturbing images, what is their purpose? <extreme humor> To hide allegedly illegal information copied WikiLeaks, in case an FBI agent comes to the Edward Snowden page and doesn't want to know about it?
On a (probably useless) side note, I see a lot of this "image censorship == just putting something in a drop-down-box" here. Why is it that people cannot seem to even consider accepting a compromise? Isn't this what plenty of people think is a big part of what's (allegedly, to some) wrong with the United States political system (and perhaps others)? Take from that little "nugget of (alleged) wisdom" what you may.. Jimw338 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sac Spider[edit]

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)[edit]

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)

I happen to have a SMALL necrotising wound on my leg. When I wanted to look up the condition I couldn't help but notice the picture... and decided to share my thoughts. The information from the text (words like "deterimental", "fatal", "amputation", "necrosis" (given, that one requires some imagination...) and - with less imagination - the first picture) are more than enough to make myself a very nasty 'picture' of what might happen to me. For that I don't need to see a picture of a small boy's almost entirely consumed leg that's still attached to the boy. I bet he was attached to that leg, too.... My .40 in. diameter, .20 in. deep wound hurts a little and itches like hell... I don't want to imagine the agony this little boy was in. Or the circumstances that lead to this.

For those with a genuine academic interest: the informative, well-written nature of the text, combined with the information from the first picture - and the mention that it may get worse - should be enough to make the statement. If you really need a picture: you're a brains-guy, surely you're resourceful enough to find one on the int..... (you get it.)

For those who are less of a brains-person: ...ernet. You know, the thing in your computer, that has all those funny pictures, letters and numbers in it. It's not just for porn,you know. It KNOWS STUFF!! Who knows, you might even learn something.

For those who want the picture to stay because... BECAUSE! : You'd do good to get off the pictures-letters-numbers thingy as fast as you can, because something bad is inevitably going to happen. YOU WILL LEARN SOMETHING!!


I wouldn't be surprised if the picture stays without a warning box and this entry gets deleted. Well, at least I spent some time not thinking about the picture whilst I wrote this text...

Please consider to put up some "nasty, not for the squeamish!!" - sign...

178.196.201.150 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the above comments seem to be about the photo of a nearly completely necrotic small boy's leg from a snake bite, File:Tissue necrosis following bite from Bothrops asper PLoS Medicine.jpg, which was removed on April 2, not the relatively minor leg wound on an adult male, caused by a brown recluse spider, File:Necrotic leg wound.png, which remains. -kotra (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Caption Under Picture may be incorrect[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That only points out fatality of those bites. It doesn't say anything about necrosis or other minor effects. The person whose leg that is a picture of is still alive and he confirmed that it was a brown recluse bite, so it should be left. 198.174.37.44 (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2012 (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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

As far as I'm aware, the recluse spiders are the only genus definitely proven to cause necrotic bites in humans. The claims that hobo spiders and yellow sac spiders cause necrotic bites is controversial because there is far less clinical evidence to support these claims. (However, these spiders may cause necrotic bites in domestic pets, such as rabbits.) The evidence that they cause necrosis in humans is mostly circumstantial, and there needs to be more research to conclusively prove or disprove these claims. --24.187.233.18 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion page for the Brown Recluse Spider has a large controversy about this subject. Given all that, it would seem to be very wrong to claim it as a "proven" necrotiser. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a cursory glance at the talk page, but I didn't see any large controversy, although I may have missed it. Anyway, it wouldn't matter. The question of whether L. reclusa is capable of delivering a necrotic bite isn't just a matter of opinion, but appears to be fairly well established in the medical literature. Here is an article that may interest you and other editors. Regards --24.187.233.18 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Accidental cell death vs Necrosis[edit]

As has been pointed out, necrosis properly refers to the tissue changes that occur after cell death. The introduction to this article promotes the common but incorrect belief that necrosis refers to cell death itself or the changes that precede cell death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.76.169 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)