Talk:Acral necrosis

Images, linkimage template
VegitaU has reinstated images inline here and at Maggot therapy. Rather than discuss, they were sarcastic and gave a bold-faced order to me. I would like to discuss this but I feel that this user is unwilling. J o ie de Vivre °  17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll write exactly what I wrote on the other page...
 * I disagree with the argument that the hiding these images within links keeps people from seeing shocking or graphic images. This is the Maggot therapy article. You don't come across this article by accident, you choose to click on the link and if these pictures happen to appear on the site, the purpose is to enhance in educating the reader, not for shock purposes. There's no nice way of displaying maggot therapy... it's a bunch of maggots eating dead flesh. My problem with this issue is that this principle may be taken further and Wikipedia may become full of articles with "optional" pictures... annoying hindrances to the actual purposes of Wikipedia. From the content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
 * For examples of these, see:
 * Burn (injury) image depicting burn injuries
 * Death clear picture of dead person
 * Bone fracture X-rays of fractured bones and surgeries performed
 * Man nudity
 * Sunburn sunburn injuries
 * The Holocaust nudity and death
 * Pogrom dead people
 * Nanking Massacre dead, beheaded people
 * Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse people undergoing torture


 * After viewing these articles, I see no reason why maggot therapy should be singled out. There are plenty of uncensored graphic images depicting exactly what the article is about. Also, none of these articles have disclaimers warning readers that material may be too graphic to view. To censor one is to open the door in censoring all. -- VegitaU 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought this up. I asked a question on a general discussion page over a year ago (I've been searching the archives and can't find it, however) asking whether or not there is any criteria regarding what potentially disturbing images can and cannot be used in articles. The view of most people who responded seemed to be that the only such criteria is the Bad Image List, which I also can't find. This list contained mostly pictures of genitals, some diseased or infected, and similar things. I think we might want to expand the criteria to include some images graphically depicting medical conditions/birth defects. Although most of these articles do not contain images, ther are a select few, most notable, I think, is anencephaly. This article contains two images of an afflicted baby, and when somebody raised the issue of whether or not the image was really necessary, the response was that it had a good reason to be there, which was that people researching the topic would likely want to see an image. If certain such images are indeed necessary, fine. Keep them, but have some sort of warning on links so that some unsuspecting reader who does not know the nature of anencephaly clicks on a link and sees the image.And, since putting a warning on every link might be awkward, we could come up with something else. I am not promoting censorship on Wikipedia. I just think we should think critically about whether potentially disturbing images are necessary, simply to avoid readers of Wikipedia seeing something horrifying. Thomasiscool 00:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
This was listed as a disease. I wanted to add to a sub category but the article states it is a symptom so I switched it to one. I couldn't find it in ICD-10 but I have inferred that it is a skin symptom. Does anyone with more knowledge have any objections? Italienmoose (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)