Talk:Myiasis

Gangrene?

Error on statement

The article describes myiasis, citing it as a disease or non-harmless infestation of fly larvae on living tissue.

The larvae used on maggot therapy are not myiasitic, since it feed only on dead tissue.

Some myiasitic fly larvae feeds on dead or live tissue or sometimes on both, but no one non-myasitic fly larvae (i.e. maggot therapy) feed on living tissue, preferring exclusively dead tissue, thus the maggot therapy fly larvae are not myiasitic and the article subsection must be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.84.193.2 (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mulesing/Crutching

As far as I have understood mulesing is a synonym for crutching. Shall we add a link to the mulesing-wiki as well?

Nichiran 18:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

thats because you have no idea what you are talking about and so yoou should not even be thinking about editingGrinchsmate (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realise you answeared a three year old comment? :-) But you'r right. Mulesing removes skin and the crutching article now makes that distinction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.237.125 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

i know i checked he history before i did anything, but i got a response didnt i —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with that :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.237.125 (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Putzi fly?

I found an unwikified, orphaned entry at putzi which refered to this entry. I transformed it into a disambig and here is the content that I now removed from it - hopefully editors more familiar with 'myiasis' will be able to reuse it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Putzi Fly. (Cordylobia anthrophaga). Also called the African Tumbu Fly. Found in Eastern and Central Africa. The females lay their eggs on clothes that are hung outdoors to dry. On contact with warm human skin, the eggs hatch, and the larvae burrow into the skin to develop into maggots. This process meanwhile causes pus-filled boils. Refer to "Myiasis".

Image

I understand there is some encyclopedic value in the article's image. But I feel this is outweighed by the fact that most people visiting this article will not want to see it. I feel a better solution would be to simply link to the image.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, wikipedia policy is to not hide disturbing pictures. In most cases the picture is on a page with a disturbing topic so you can't claim that you wandered in by accident. That might apply here. It's also possible to set your user preferences so that you block disturbing picture. You may want to use this feature and to add the myasis picture to their list of disturbing pictures.

But anyway I've implemented a third option, which now hides the picture until you click "show". It dosn't look good since I'm breaking a template in the process, but it works. I'm OK about reverting to full showing too, if anyone else objects to the hiding. EverGreg (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm more or less okay with the hide option. With regards to your statement on wikipedia policy I am actually quite familiar as I've been editing for quite sometime now. Obviously we should not show disturbing pictures in all cases even if they are somewhat relevant. For example, should we show stills of Christine Chubbuck or Budd Dwyer right after blowing their brains out? Of course not. I'm not advocating censorship by any measure (I'm an unmarried 23 year old man with no children so I only think about what makes me sick) I just think we must have some manner of restraint with what we show.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Before posting my opinion, I feel obliged to let everyone know that I am the uploader of the image in question. That being said, this is outrageous in my opinion. I would refer to WP:NOTCENSORED. Even though I understand that there are some users here that are offended by the picture, this would fall under censorship. Wikipedia has many uncensored articles that may be offensive to some users, MUCH more than an image of a clinical issue. Being that you seem offended by this I will not place here the link to a certain Scorpions album, and I will not also place the link here to human genitalia. If you were to start censoring wikipedia, you may want to start there instead of with clinical issues. Best Regards Monkeytheboy (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for submitting the picture! Then just so that we're on the same page: At the time of writing, the picture is not removed from the myiasis page, it is merely hidden and can be displayed by clicking show. I would not be comfortable with removing the picture and all links to it, but exploring the middle grounds of the issue dosn't hurt. One of these were the "show" link, another one which I've put in place now is that the picture shows to everyone by default, but there's a "hide" link to hide it. Pragmatic middle-grounds often prevail on wikipedia. For instance Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy implies that truths can be withheld from an article. EverGreg (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I kinda resent the claim that I am specifically attempting to "censor" you. I don't see it like that at all. First of all with regards to the male genitalia article, you would basically expect to see such an image. With regards to the scorpions album article (I assume you mean the one with the pre-pubescent girl) the cover art is always included in articles about albums and it was notable in of itself because of the amount of controversy it caused. I am really kinda offended that it has been implied that I am somehow pro-censorship when I am not. I just feel that we should be sensible with whatever images we include.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just like to say that will the image is disturbing you would expect it to be and as such it should be viewed by default. On a small side note Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg unless you think anyone of any age should be able to view whatever they wish you like everyone else are pro-censorship. 58.165.36.30 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My complaint isn't that the picture is nauseating, but that its inclusion is unencyclopedic. It seems to be primarily be a lurid shock tactic, rather than the best way of providing information, since it focuses specifically on the gross removal procedure rather than the overriding topic of the parasite or infection itself, and because even so there is a suitable and more informative alternative: describing the removal procedure in detail in the text of the page rather than this grody image. As someone else mentioned, the Budd Dwyer page handles this properly, showing the living man just prior to the suicide that made him noteworthy, not the act itself. Don't get me wrong. I like a good shock site, and I'm not pro-censorship. (For instance, I have no problem with the image on the Goatse.cx page, as it clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in WP:NOTCENSORED despite the content being nauseating.) But the current Myiasis image makes the page feel like a booby trap, not an encyclopedia entry. I have found a possible compromise, though: reducing the image size, as is done on the Goatse page, so as to significantly lessen the visceral impact, and to require close scrutiny to see the details. So I have done this. The full size image is still available upon clickthrough. If this compromise is for some reason unacceptable, alternatively, I believe editing the composite image to just include the first and last one, showing the external appearance and the organism, would be less revolting and actually more relevant to the topic than including the Dario Argento film sequence in the middle. The only reason I have taken the first option rather than the second is I just don't have the time for the second right now. WP:NOTCENSORED refers to "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." I would say "offensive, profane or obscene" refers to rational judgments, but that is not the basis of the complaints about this image. I also want to add: I think the use of the word "offended" to describe people's complaints is misleading, and "outrage" is either an overreaction or a misunderstanding of what's being said here. The complaints are not on moral, political, military, religious or corporate grounds, and therefore don't under the definition of censorship. It's not that the picture is morally offensive to anybody, it's that it is viscerally, physically sickening, and doesn't convey anything other than shock value that couldn't be better conveyed some other way. Therefore WP:NOTCENSORED isn't applicable. SteubenGlass (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A further issue is that use of the {{hider}} seems to prevent allowing a caption on the picture. I believe a text caption (as included in the code but not displayed because it's invalid in this context) would be appropriate given the content. (Hope this suggestion isn't "censorship" :-/ ) There's also been some user discussion that using a 'hide' link to hide page elements for any reason other than keeping the page from getting too long violates WP:DISC, too... but it doesn't appear in any official guidelines that I've seen, so I'm not removing it. But note that most other controversial images (e.g. goatse.cx, autofellatio) don't use it. SteubenGlass (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My entire point is that I want to leave it up to the individual person to decide if they want to see the picture. If they just arrive here and are instantly blasted by a disturbing image they might be upset.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but if you were to arrive to this page, it would be on purpose since wikipedia is not one of those "accidental pop-up" sites. If they do not want to see pictures of Myiasis, they probably would not want to come to this page in the first place. If they want a definition of Myiasis, a simple dictionary would suffice. An encyclopedia is meant to explain more on the subject. The mere reason that an image might "upset" someone is not good enough when the image is placed in an article as a means to illustrate the subject. (In fact, I personally have a problem with the 'hide' function placed, but if the community feels better with it, i'm ok with it as well). Monkeytheboy (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here without really knowing what myasis was, I feel that the majority of the people that wind up on the page will have the same understanding of it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

put your stupid fucking images in a gallery or something with thumbnails at the bottom or link to them from the article, if I just wandered to wikipedia to look up a fancy word I do not need to see that shit 88.66.8.48 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Moshe described, I arrived at this article through a link out of curiosity and had no idea what it was about. Needless to say, I wish I hadn't clicked the link. Censorship or not, the images are excessive. When I'm mindlessly browsing through wikipedia I really don't like having to worry about losing my lunch over some horrible image that serves no purpose but to shock and disgust people, and I think most people probably feel the same way. Wikipedia may not censor, but lets use common sense here. The images probably scare 90% of the people away before they have a chance to read the intro. They more than likely do more harm than good. Sbw01f (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image redux

Agreed, this is like having graphic biopsy images right on the cover of a medical textbook, use your head and show some common sense. I'm pulling this right now, if you're really, really hot on having an image, get an illustration or something. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture that was being discussed by the people above was a different one from the one you removed. I disagree with the current image's removal and am restoring it per WP:BRD. Other opinions are welcome. Deor (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, please tell me what you think this image adds to the article's clarity by being embedded (right on the header sidebar at that!) as opposed to behind an external link, that is, that the opening paragraph lacks. 72.235.213.232 (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also would vote for a click-to-view image. This article is the first match for a Google search for "Myiasis", and the excerpt is "Myiasis is an animal disease caused by parasitic dipterous fly larvae feeding on the host's necrotic or living tissue. Colloquialisms for myiasis include ...". I think it is reasonable to think that a visitor looking for a definition of this word (or hitting the page through a "Random article" click) would click the link and might not expect a clinical image.

However, I'm having a little trouble determining why I selectively feel this way about this image. I think it has much to do with larvae being the closest thing I have to a phobia. It's not rational, and it's not grounds for removal, but it's hardly unique. I think a reasonable question to ask is if someone can understand the topic without no image or with line art. As long as there's an obvious link to click to view a photo, I think claims of censorship (for this or any preceding image) are weak. Because of the way that Wikipedia pages are frequently accessed, I believe that masthead illustrations on pages are closer in model to book covers rather than pages in a medical encyclopedia. And I'd like to note that a traditional encyclopedia would almost certainly have line art, rather than a photo. The image has value -- of course -- but what is lost by making a user click to see an image? (My mind's not set on this, but I want us to discuss it more.) mcgees.org (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Green Bottle Fly

Hello, been reading some cases about green-bottle fly infections. This article mentions that "The flies themselves do not parasitise the host. They lay eggs in open wounds, necrotic or decaying tissue and corpses, especially in animals like sheep. Man is thus an accidental host, and trauma is an important risk factor.". Is this appropriate grounds to move Lucilia sericata from semispecific to accidental myiasis? Regards Obama gaming (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)