Talk:Lesion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It appears that the main content of this article was lifted directly from (on March 16, 2006):
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4135
This looks like a clear copyright violation, as this article was available on medterms.com from at least 2003:
Their terms of use clearly forbid this use:
No part of any information copyrighted by MedicineNet, Inc. may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, displayed, transmitted or otherwise used in digital or electronic form for any purpose, except as explicitly authorized by the terms and conditions posted on MedicineNet.com.
From: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21453
This content needs to be removed, replaced, or (at the very least) cleared with MedicineNet and attributed correctly.
161.55.180.141 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have replaced the entire article. However, I'd like someone else to look over it, which is why I put an expert tag on the article instead of a cleanup tag. --Mdwyer 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] synonym
isn't "lesion" just a fancy name for "damage"?? What difference does it make to say "He has a lesion in Brodmann area 12." instead of "He has a damaged Brodmann area 12."-- ExpImptalkcon 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to say that your first sentence is equal to "He has damage in Brodmann area 12," but I think your second sentence says something slightly different. Damage causes a lesion, and a lesion is also evidence of past damage. But I think the problem is that you can have damage without having a lesion. A puncture wound isn't really abnormal tissue, so it isn't a lesion, but it is still damage. --Mdwyer 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, yes it is just a fancy name for "damage." From Taber's Encyclopedic Medical Dictionary: "1. A circumscribed area of pathologically altered tissue. 2. An injury or wound. 3. A single infected patch in a skin disease." Etymologically, it comes from the Latin laesio meaning "wound." I think the sine qua non for a lesion is that it must be visible damage -- either grossly or microscopically. For instance, a DNA mutation causing disease wouldn't be considered a lesion since it's not visible by conventional techniques. —Brim 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, by that definition, I'm wrong about a puncture not being a lesion. That's why I've got the need an expert tag up there. Brim, from what you know and have read, do you think the expert flag can be removed? --Mdwyer 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your rewrite looks good. As for a puncture wound being a lesion or not... keep in mind that lesion is a loosely-defined word and it's often thrown around without much thought to it. I doubt that most medical professionals would call a puncture wound a lesion, since it's just a little bit too fancy of a term for something as mundane as a puncture wound, but technically I guess it fits. I think it's safe to remove the expert tag. —Brim 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, by that definition, I'm wrong about a puncture not being a lesion. That's why I've got the need an expert tag up there. Brim, from what you know and have read, do you think the expert flag can be removed? --Mdwyer 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, yes it is just a fancy name for "damage." From Taber's Encyclopedic Medical Dictionary: "1. A circumscribed area of pathologically altered tissue. 2. An injury or wound. 3. A single infected patch in a skin disease." Etymologically, it comes from the Latin laesio meaning "wound." I think the sine qua non for a lesion is that it must be visible damage -- either grossly or microscopically. For instance, a DNA mutation causing disease wouldn't be considered a lesion since it's not visible by conventional techniques. —Brim 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
