Talk:Pathology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Red links are associated with the following.....

There are lots of pathology testing laboratories that should be listed by nations, such as the following

• http://www.pathwest.com.au/

--58.38.44.209 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.snp.com.au/

--58.38.44.209 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.labtestsonline.org/

• http://labtestsonline.org.au/

--58.38.44.209 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing the psychology related polyseme ("Pathologies").

Category:Psychology states that:

Psychology is a collection of academic, clinical and industrial disciplines concerned with the explanation and prediction of behavior, thinking, emotions, motivations, relationships, potentials and pathologies.

The last word (pathologies) in that excerpt is a link to this page.

While here there is no mention, at all, of that polyseme (meaning) of the word. (Here it is all about Cells (biology) and Tissue (biology)).

I think it would be very helpful to have at least a short comment, at the top of this page, stating that the psychology related polyseme: "Pathologies" is out of scope for this article.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I've added a lead sentence wikilinking to psychopathology. It also then seemed necessary to differentiate it from neurological terms. Pile-Up (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue came up at Talk:Pedophilia as well:

Note the pathology article appears to hold a definition that does not accommodate psychological or colloquial usage. This article says "pedophilia is a [..] disorder," and is defined as such within a scientific context (pseudo-scientific according to Feynman ;-)), and as such the term "pathology" seems to be quite accurate. Child molestation is certainly a sociological disease, perhaps its substantive to describe child attraction as similar. -SC

Just linking to psychopathology doesn't itself treat fully the concept that "pathology" itself has non-physiological meanings, which are technically in the domain of "psychopathology." I suggest adding a section explaining the terminology and derived etymology. In cases where there is ambiguity and a conceptual distinction, it helps to just state upfront that the article topic belongs to a particular domain:

In medicine, pathology is the study of disease through examination of organs, tissues, bodily fluids, and whole bodies (autopsies)."

The next sentence references "general pathology," which clears things up...

"Pathology also encompasses the related scientific study of disease processes, called general pathology."

...but doesn't sufficiently describe the more general "general pathology" concept. It's a natural case to put the dominant article first though, so its not too much of an issue. I'll attempt a little bit of refactoring when I get the chance. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead paragraph. Have a look. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic about Pathological laboratory

• http://scholar.google.com/

--222.64.27.154 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic has to be established as it is related to the topics of Fungal infection, Yeast infection, Virus infection and Bacteria infection etc.--222.64.27.154 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/

• http://scholar.google.com/

--222.64.27.154 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Pathology

I understand that someone stated that they tried to make the history of pathology "universal", but I see no such information of when people began understanding diseases and therefore coining the term "pathology". I would like to add an actual history of pathology to this article. Thank you.

Jscruz28 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

File:PhilippeCharlier.jpg

I think the fotograph is misleading because pathologists normally don't collect skulls in their workroom and this picture favors the preconception of pathologists working all the day with the dead. Bcr-abl (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I'm glad someone finally got around to doing this! The medical discipline of pathology has enough trouble recruiting competent students and has to settle for undertrained, and sometimes unqualified people. Part of that reason is the misconception that pathologists are freaks in labs that collect skulls and carve the dead all day, and are the physicians who couldn't relate to patients because of personality issues. This photo only fanned those flames! Kudos!

Proposed merge with Pathology as a medical specialty

I believe an IP editor attempted to merge content here, but it was a copypaste with included [edit source][edit beta] in the text. If there is a consensus to merge the pages (I tend to agree that these pages should be merged), then it should be done correctly... Lesion (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC) The page on "pathology" is a bit scattershot. It appears to try to define the word itself and everything that it could represent, which is a disorganized approach. I understand that there is more to "pathology" than medicine, but most of what pathology represents is the medical practice of diagnosis. To include the other parts, like plant pathology and veterinary pathology, we could perhaps make the main "pathology" page into a disambiguation page: as it stands, trying to define it as a whole is more akin to a dictionary than an encyclopedia.

As for my edits, I explained each of them as I had done them. Renal path is not a subdiscipline of path. General path is merely the combination of AP and CP, which can be easily confirmed by visiting CaRMS. Plant path has more to do with plant research than pathology, as does vet path - both of these topics, though being encompassed under the nonspecific umbrella term of pathology, are superfluous to the rest of the article - if they are included, we should also include psychopathology, since it falls under the same umbrella. Vet path is not a system, so I changed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC) ALso, the bottom part "pathology as a medical specialty" is entirely superfluous and already covered under the articles for anat. path, clin. path, forensic path, derm path, heme path etc. It just lists requirements of training for each nation listed. I am deleting that.

Agree this page needs some attention. I am not sure if you were the person making other bold changes to this article yesterday, which another editor reverted, but generally when people see lots of content being deleted without discussion on the talk page first it is concerning.

We have a disambiguation page called Pathology (disambiguation), which is fairly widely scoped. The question is do we want to restrict this article to pathology as a discipline in medicine, or do we want to talk more widely about how the term is used? The latter might be more fitting for an encyclopedia. Maybe this is why the page pathology as a medical specialty was created in the first instance. Lesion (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I see what you are saying. However, the main article on "pathology" is far too unfocused to be of any use. I suggest a disambiguation page would be appropriate, rather than a page running the gamut from plant path to vet path to anat path etc. Plus, a lot of what is written on that page is simply inaccurate (renal path as a specific subdiscipline of path, paths doing most of the research on infectious diseases etc). The term pathology describes a great deal of other things that are not included in the present article as well, like speech pathology, psychopathology, computer pathology, systems pathology etc, but we are only focusing on the cellular biological definition on this page, which is not entirely encompassing. But, seeing as how trying to describe the entire scope of the word "pathology" is unwieldy, a disambiguation page is appropriate.

Furthermore, the "pathology as a medical specialty" page doesn't describe that in any more detail than the above pages on anatomical, clinical path etc. It just lists the requirements for training, which is not the function of an encyclopedia.70.50.128.208 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

True, the page doesn't discuss computer pathology etc. OK I'm happy for this page to be refocussed on medical pathology and other uses of the term placed on the disambig page. A hatnote reading "This page is about pathology in medicine, for other uses of the term, see pathology (disambiguation) would then link to that. Not sure what others think about this.

If this page becomes focussed on pathology in medicine, then arguably there is no further use for pathology as a medical specialty and that content could be merged here. Note however that "medical discipline" type articles do tend to list the requirements for training, e.g. see General_surgery#Training. I personally would want that content to stay in the article somewhere. Lesion (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't think I support a merge, these articles are too different and I think it would pollute (to be honest) this article to move the content here. What would be your thoughts on renaming pathology as a medical specialty to pathologist? That article seems more to do with the actual position and qualifications than the theory and content of pathology. LT90001 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit: articles about professionals generally redirect to articles about professions. I have transposed the merge content and rearranged this article in keeping with other medical speciality articles. LT910001 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)