File talk:Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman Meningicoccal Disease.jpg

This picture is painful to view. Isn't there any other informative photo that doesn't make me cringe/feel terrible (especially if it is to be displayed on the front page).

Sanitas (talk)

It is a bit graphic, it doesn't bother me but I can see how it would bother others. --76.11.115.213 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children use this encyclopedia. Common sense dictates that the present image be removed and a more suitable image be found. 209.222.133.181 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, very bad for the children to see, make them have bad dreams 85.12.16.223 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. If an image is relevant to an article and provides information, it isn't removed simply because some users find it offensive or disgusting. The image is disgusting. So is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Necrotic_leg_wound.png. However, they're both relevant to the articles in which they appear and offer something to the user that words cannot.

That said, though I'm not a medical expert, from a cursory look at the article, I get the sense that the image is not exactly illustrative of all cases of meningitis, but rather of a severe case of "meningococcal meningitis". If you do not think the image should be used on the main page, I would make an argument from that position. TaintedMustard (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but yes you do censor - you remove the grafitti, people remove things from the articles all the time with editting so you are doing censoring here every minute of the day - i do not say to censor, only to choose more tasteful foto, or to put in place not seen by children, if with just the article that is fine but to put that picture on front page is terrible, you are doing what i think you americans call 'cut off your nose to spite your face', what is next foto of decapitations? like the other person say, this is matter of common sense, you are free to wear a swimsuit to a funeral or wedding, but is that wise? 85.12.16.228 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is weak. The removal of nonsensical, unverified or irrelevant material is not the sort of censorship that is prohibited by the rules (or guidelines—whatever you want to call them). Wikipedia has to adhere to some standards in order to be of any use at all. Once again, if an image is relevant to an article and provides information, it isn't removed simply because some users find it offensive or disgusting. TaintedMustard (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universal standard of common sense. That's why we have explicitly stated rules. Kairos (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this image as the main image for the article should have precluded the article from being a featured article. Too graphic for the main page. I mean, I just ate... ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If I really needed to know about this condition I would look it up (the same goes for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Necrotic_leg_wound.png), however I do not expect such an eyesore on the main page. I agree that if the photo is informative and relevant it should me used (just maybe not on a main page).

Sanitas (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little better. Actually, I was more annoyed at the suggestion that it be removed entirely. I personally don't care what image is featured on the main page as long as this one is allowed to remain in the meningitis article. While this particular item doesn't bother me, I am a bit of an arachnophobe and I tend to avoid articles that might contain images of spiders, so I understand where you're coming from. However, if a particularly hideous spider were to be featured on the main page, image and all, I wouldn't object. I'm not opposed, exactly, to replacing the current image, but coming up with a set of guidelines to which few would have any serious objections seems like a daunting task. TaintedMustard (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Wikipedia is uncensored and all that, but could we at least be considerate for the people who don't want to see such a disgusting image on the front page? Honestly, whose bright idea was that? It could be considered NSFW too, and that's kind of a problem for people who might need to use the Wiki in a public place. --24.164.87.138 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC

Sure, just because you guys find this condition "disgusting" we will remove it, Don't be arrogant, its a serious condition, if you don't like it, don't look at it --Casket56 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't have much of a choice when it comes to the main page. It ought to stay in the article, though. TaintedMustard (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAn somebody put a proper explanation in the caption for this picture. ~Thanks!--169.232.114.166 (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the picture anywhere in the article. Does it deserve to be on the front page?--67.194.12.58 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Poor baby! Hope he didn't die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.58 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]