Talk:Gangrene

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: it happens to soldiers, too, as a result of untreated gunshot wounds. 93.219.190.248 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is gangrene found in the world? I mean in what countries? please answer ASAP 

message: 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)
thread_title: Testimonial

message: 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)
replies: text: Huh? JFW | T@lk 15:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning of Disturbing Pics at Top? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recently added 

message: where was the fist "outbreak" found?
76.194.34.241 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  where did gangrene orginate from? 

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

text: Be civil and don't make personal attacks. Thanks. ~ UBeR 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article contain photographs that you may find disturbing

message: 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)
replies: text: It's the one at the bottom that is extra.  --Joelmills 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deja vue...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.  Carmaskid (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hydrogen disulphide (HG)??? (Dry gangrene section) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: For reference, here is how medical experts (I am tempted to write mature, knowledgeable adults) present information on gangrene to the general public: , , , , , . 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)
replies: text: I responded to the above at the parent Content noticeboard thread (originally unrelated to this article), beginning with "I'll counter with , , , ...."  See also MOS:COLLAPSE and my comments below. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for pictures 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Product advertising - Septiloc 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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?  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)
replies: text: 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. , ,  are typical examples of illustrations I did find.  --JN466 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed that the images should remain viewable without collapsible boxes. Immunize  (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image hiding dispute 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Well, my question to all who are offended by seeing this picture would be this: what did you expect to see on this page? I don't think it should come as a surprise that the page will have a representative image of gangrene in plain view. I'm not denying that people may find the image offensive, but it shouldn't have taken you by surprise that it's located on this page and at the top where it can be readily seen. That's my opinion anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the fuck is wrong with you people?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Causes?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:policy states that articles should be based on subject matter and not personal opinions of or reactions to content. You should not move the content on page without a consensus on talk-page. Also, please don't open new sections for same issue. It is being discussed in section above. Have a nice day. ——Saurabh P. (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: Hi Im BOBCOW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.104.234.98 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BobCow 

message: Changing the subject...the above-named section contains the following text:
"John M. Trombold wrote: 'Middleton Goldsmith, a surgeon in the Union Army during the American Civil War, meticulously studied hospital gangrene and developed a revolutionary treatment regimen. The cumulative Civil War hospital gangrene mortality was 45 percent. Goldsmith's method, which he applied to over 330 cases, yielded a mortality under 3 percent.'"[17]
It begs the question, what was the revolutionary treatment?  The treatment should be at least briefly described, or the paragraph should be omitted.  Wikipedia has no article on the surgeon, Middleton Goldsmith, so I couldn't get the answer by looking him up.  
Carmaskid (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an online answer to my question so I added a couple sentences to the text:
Dr. Goldsmith’s work at the Jeffersonville Army hospital and his subsequent, 1863 textbook, A Report on Hospital Gangrene, Erysipelas, and Pyaemia, predated the discoveries of Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister.  Goldsmith advocated the use of debridement and topical and injected bromide solutions on infected wounds to reduce the incidence and virulence of “poisoned miasma.”  Copies of his book were issued to Union surgeons to  encouragee the use of his methods.
I hope I did the reference correctly.  If not, could someone with better skills please fix it?Carmaskid (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Are either of these major causes? Don't see mention here but end of FB mentions gangrene can happen as result. Concerned 'bout left heel. 174.92.133.107 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Frostnip]] or [[Frostbite]]

message: Hi,
The lead to this article includes wikilinks to Dry gangrene and Wet gangrene. These wikilinks eventually #REDIRECT back to Gangrene#Dry_gangrene and Gangrene#Wet_gangrene. This is clearly a fuck up; please fix it. Note that the links to Gas gangrene and the others point to separate articles, so do not need fixing. 74.205.219.198 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular #REDIRECTs 

message: Why does somebody just have a foot in a jar lying around in their home? I know that’s gotta smell bad… 73.43.134.88 (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot in jar 

message: I'd propose putting an artistic representation/diagram instead of what the current main picture is which can be put further down, along other similar pictures. (I'm fully aware of the policies and guidelines in regard to pictures in Wikipedia.) Speaking for myself (and quite some other people, judging from past discussions) the photo was offsetting enough to not allow me to read even the main/lede part of the article, which usually I'm able to do in a lot of other medical articles. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures (again)