Talk:Pathology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pathology has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pathology. See WikiProject Pathology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Contents 1 Focus on the way things are done in the US 2 Jokes 3 Undiscussed and uninvited deletions 3.1 More edits 4 Biology and medicine 5 Pathology and Pathologist 6 Tools of Pathology 7 Deleted ' Other uses of "pathology" ' 8 Major revision 9 GA review

[edit] Focus on the way things are done in the US

Pathology is not exclusive to the United States and so I don't see why there is an explanation of the way pathology is organised in said country. It should be written from a more universal perspective than it is currently, taking the focus away from the US. Rrh02 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the history 'universal' (OK it's eurocentric, but so is Western medicine). In talking about the subspecialties of pathology, it's hard not to use the terms of one country. This is the English language Wikipedia, so I think the U.S. is as good a choice as any. If someone wants to add 'pathology in the U.K.' or 'pathology in Canada' or australia or whatever, that could be interesting. Rustavo 10:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jokes

The jokes are okay[1] - hahahaha - but:

• Do you have proof that pathologists are joked about more than orthopods?
• Is there a reliable source for these jokes?

Just spoiling the fun. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

When discussing medical jokes, no other specialty comes even close to pathology. Forget it. Don't even think about it. I'm serious. Dead serious. Emmanuelm 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Culled from article (not really appropriate without rewrite)

== Pathologists work ==

Because the public rarely meets pathologists, their work is not well understood. Many people think they spend their days doing autopsies, which is very far from the truth. Autopsies represent less than 10% of the workload of a typical modern pathologist. Instead, they are responsible, along with medical technologists for medical laboratories. In other words, patients should know that what their doctor calls a "laboratory result" is not a number spewed by a black box. Instead, it is the personal opinion of a pathologist or a technologist. It is also important to understand that a different laboratory might produce a different opinion on the same specimen.

In addition to the diagnosis of patients and the administration of medical laboratories, pathologists often participate in the teaching of medical students (Pathology is a core course in the medical curriculum). Also, since all human tissues are under the responsibility of the Pathology laboratory, research involving human material usually involves the pathologist. Finally, the circulation of laboratory data is a central issue in medical informatics and the current tendency towards electronic medical records. --Light current 03:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I write something wrong? Please clarify your opinion. Emmanuelm 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed and uninvited deletions

Next time you want to remove chunks of an article, like what you did to the pathology page for example, try discussing it in the talk page first. I reverted your deletions and asked you to clarify in the talk page. Emmanuelm 21:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant material will always be removed not necessarily with notice.

Please note:

   * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
   * Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages.
   * See our policies and guidelines for more information on editing. 

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pathology"

I reverted most of the deletions by Light Current. In the future, I would appreciate a discussion. Emmanuelm 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about pathology, not pathologists. It couldnt be clearer!BTW I didnt delete the material , I moved it here pending decision on its new home!

--Light current 21:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the pathologist page is redirected to this page, which is fine with me. Do you want to change this and create a new page? Emmanuelm 21:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for my changes was the the headings were totally wrong. Yes a new page should be created for pathologist--Light current 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted my reversion of your deletions, again without discussion. I am shocked by your insolence. 1. What do you know about pathology? 2. My headings were, in my opinion, a useful guide to the different part of this article; "Explanation" is not an informative chapter title. 3. You still did not tell me what was wrong with my "pathologist's work" chapter. 4. I think the page pathologist would be redundant; I believe you like to keep things simple, and so do I. If you want to create it nevertheless, I'll be glad to edit it. If not, please revert your latest reversion and stay out of this page. Very sincerely, Emmanuelm 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote earlier "If you want to create it nevertheless, I'll be glad to edit it". Well, I have changed my mind. I am not contributing to Wikipedia anymore. Goodbye. Emmanuelm 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, your headings are too large (font size). Please read the Manual of Style! Dont expect discussion on obvious errors! Pathologists work obviously relates to pathoilogists. I have put that on the pathologist page. Please dont be so sensitive!--Light current 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More edits

Hopefully nobody's going to gripe at me for my edits. Emmanualm: be aware that wikipedia's guideline is that editors should be bold in editing pages. Most edits do not require permission. Deletion of large chunks of an article is an exception, but in this case Light current did move the material to the talk page for discussion, which is generally considered appropriate.--Srleffler 03:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Srleffler, I have asked Light current twice what was wrong with my text, and twice he failed to answer (its all in this page). That's not what I call discussion. Emmanuelm 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps he missed your question. It's not normal on Wikipedia for people to have to "explain" their edits, nor should you feel offended that someone else felt they could improve on what you wrote. It's part of the process. Everything gets tweaked/edited/massaged multiple times, and overall the quality improves. Light current's edits were mostly style-related. Your section headings didn't really correspond with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, so he was right to try to fix them. The dispute between you would have been much simpler if you had simply replaced the paragraphs he deleted instead of reverting all his changes including the entirely appropriate changes in font on the headings. I don't really know why he felt that pathologist should be separated from pathology. Perhaps that's how the articles for other medical specialties are organized. Anyway, I hope you will reconsider your departure. You clearly have a lot of knowledge you could share here and your contributions would be more than welcome.--Srleffler 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that chunks of text should be culled without any mention about what's wrong with them. The removed section needs sources and a bit of NPOV, but it is generally accepted that pathology is misperceived by the outside world (and even by physicians!) I can't imagine someone hasn't published a study of this. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly understand Emmanuelm's reasoning for wanting to have a separate page relating to pathologist, and perhaps he didn't see the informaton about pathologist on the Anatomic pathology page. Prior to seeing this discussion, I had made a comment in the discussion section on the pathology page on how to restructure it. I agree, the original needed more NPOV. However, I think perhaps some expansion to the Anatomic pathology page in the pertinent area makes more sense, so in reality the page is most likely a bit redundant if the information is about a an anatomic pathologist is already there. I also agree with the delete without comment....the reason that didn't set with him is that it is a practice inherently alien to a pathologist....who always explains what is taken out (grin). To not do so is malpractice!! I am not fond of the phraseology that another name for pathology is "laboratory medicine", and would like to know the reference that came from. It represents one aspect of the practice of pathology, Clinical pathology. --JCyrisse 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biology and medicine

Some pathologists are doctors. I believe this is under-emphasized in the article. For example, part of the opening:

      Within biology, it means specifically the study of the structural and functional changes in cells, tissues and organs that underlie disease.  

Is Pathology not also part of medicine? After all, it's on Template:Medicine but not Template:biology-footer. I think the article should be changed to include more about medical pathology and not just research. --VashiDonsk 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathology and Pathologist

My opinion for a merger. I'm all for cutting down on superfluous articles... the pathologist article need not be a separate entity considering the length is quite short and the subject matter tends towards an essay of personal feeling. I certainly did not assume pathologists spent most of their time doing autopsies, what would support this notion? If this is the basis for such an article existing I do not see the point of it. Cut down on server load, increase searching efficiency and collect articles into an organised structure by a merge, at least until such time as pathologist becomes an article in its own right.

I think it needs a bit more of a leg to stand on until then. -- Serephine / talk - 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, these should NOT be merged. A pathologist is a specialized physician. However, as noted in the current article, the term "pathology" has a broader use than only medicine. User:Bpolhemus

Indeed they are mostly specialized physicians, but many are trained as research scientists too - in the same way that pathology is more than a medical science, a pathologist is more than a medical doctor. Back to the point however, at the moment the pathologist article has no real reason to exist other than to prove the point that someone thinks society views their work with bias. It has no real value other than that, and unless someone can propose reasons why it has the merits to stand by itself I can't see a reason for it to exist. It currently serves as less of an encyclopaedic article and more of a definition combined with personal thought. -- Serephine / talk - 15:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely think they should be merged. For example, radiologist redirects to radiology.

I came to this page looking for the term Diagnostician, which doesn't seem to exist in Wikipedia yet. I'm still not sure if a physician specialized in diagnosis would fall into a particular field of medicine, or if it would be the same as a pathologist or what else it would be called. So, with all that in mind, I'd like to suggest either the creation of a page for the specialty (and/or specialist) or the inclusion of any possible nod (correlations, meaning, possible differences, etc.) on the topic "Pathologist's work", so that the common reader like myself would be better informed. (Anonymous)

I tried to emphasize the commonalities between the broader term pathology and the medical specialty in my revision. I happen to think it would be a mistake to separate the two. Rustavo 10:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tools of Pathology

Clinical chemistry is listed under tools of pathology as a red link, however there is already an article on biochemistry. As the two terms are usually synonymous, should clinical chem be replaced with biochem, with the appropriate link. Jars 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Biochemistry may be a colloquial pseudonym for Clinical Chemistry but with regards to Pathology it is overly broad. Biochemistry is the science of chemistry within Biology and does take into account Clinical Chemistry but I defy you to find a routine Clinical Chemistry laboratory performing investigations into the intricate biological pathways of carbohydrate metabolism in the strawberry! The term Clinical Biochemistry is a more correct Pseudonym and synonym for Clinical Chemistry which lessens the scope.

The_Biochemist ( http://www.minvent.ltd.uk | http://www.elaboratory.co.uk )

--62.6.139.11 09:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clinical chemistry is a subspeciality of pathology. Within clinical laboratories, Clinical Chemistry is the term used to describe a sub-section of the lab where specific types of laboratory assays are performed. Other sub-sections often include Microbiology, Molecular Pathology, Surgical Pathology, etc. Along these lines, subspecialty pathology textbooks include Burtis et al "Tietz Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics". Biochemistry, as eloquuetely discussed by the previous comment, is entirely different. Although biochemical assays are utilized within Clinical Chemistry, they are not synonymous. Well, at least they are not synonymous in my opinion. Hope that helps clarify a bit. (Although, it may obfuscate further. If so, I am willing to explain my opinion further.) Best regards. --Ziadp 14:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted ' Other uses of "pathology" '

I deleted this section, and have repasted it below. It consists of dictionary-like definitions of the word "pathology" which have nothing to do with the core topic of the article - the study of disease and a related medical specialty. We can link to a disambiguation page at the top of the article if necessary.

Pathological is used to describe a person's actions in such a way as to credit the action to a disease process, e.g. pathological purchasing or pathological consumption, pathological narcissism, pathological liar, pathological gambling, pathological jealousy. Pathological is also used casually, to signify an abnormal state, e.g. a "pathological attitude" or a "pathological woman hater".

Pathological is also used in mathematics, physics, and statistics to describe an exceptionally (or awkwardly, or inconveniently) atypical example or set of data, often one which does not abide by rules or succumb to treatment that other similar cases usually do:

• Pathological (mathematics)
• Pathological science

Computer science uses this term in a slightly different sense with regard to the study of algorithms. Here, an input (or set of inputs) is said to be pathological if it causes atypical behavior from the algorithm, such as a violation of its average case complexity, or even its correctness. For example, hash tables generally have pathological inputs: sets of keys that collide on hash values. The term is often used pejoratively, as a way of dismissing such inputs as being specially designed to break a routine that is otherwise sound in practice.

Forensic Engineers often use the term to describe the underlying causes of distress in structures or machinery in order to specify repairs.

Rustavo 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

I made some major revisions to this article, including adding a history section and reorganising the medical specialty information. I think this has made it more readable, and helps clarify the relationship between "pathology" as a general field of study and "pathology" the medical specialty. I tried to incorporate existing content as much as possible, although I felt that the informal and POV tone of some of the previous medical specialty paragraphs was not appropriate. Thoughts, criticisms and additions are welcome! Rustavo 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed some new intro sections, "medical pathology" and "non-medical pathology," which had been added to the beginning of the article. They were, for the most part, redundant of existing sections. I tried to incorporate all non-redundant material in those section into the appropriate sections below. If the author of those sections or others feel that it would be better to place the "pathology as a medical subspecialty" section above the "history" section, we should discuss that - I think putting the history first helps explain how the medical field of pathology is related to the scientific tradition of pathology, which is an issue that confuses a lot of people.

Also, we need a citation that clearly proves that most pathologists do not perform autopsies. I have seen statistics that over 60% of pathologists in the US perform autopsies at least occasionally, although few pathologists outside of forensics spend more than 5% of their time on autopsies. Rustavo 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This article is well-written. The history section is excellent, and quite informative.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

A couple areas of improvement would be the dental pathology and non-human pathology sections, as they are kind of short. Editors might want to review WP:CITE for tips on formatting reference citations. You might also want to keep an eye on external links, and maybe organize/prioritize the links a little better. There's not an overly large amount of linkspam (at least not yet ;-).

Cheers! Dr. Cash 00:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)