Talk:Anatomical pathology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Pathology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

"Anatomic" or "Anatomical"[edit]

Here in the U.S., we tend to say "Anatomic". I'm not sure "anatomical" is the preferred usage anywhere. If there are no objections, I will move this page to Anatomic pathology in a week or so, and turn Anatomical pathology into a redirect. -Rustavo 06:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UK usage is "anatomical". The page should probably stay here as per WP:NC. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is customary to seek consensus before moving a page when there has been a dispute. I am trying to go about this in a systematic way as part of WikiProject Pathology, and by the criteria we are using, anatomic pathology appeared to be the best title for the page. I understand that since the US is a more populous country, hit counts on PubMed and Google may be biased toward the U.S. spelling, but I think we should be using a more unbiased criterion than "whoever gets there first." What is the official licensing body in the U.K. so I can add that to the criteria? -Rustavo 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Anatomical is in wide use and I think the manual of style (WP:MOS) should not be disregarded. Also, it appears that in Canada,[1][2][3] Australia,[4][5] and the UK[6][7] they officially use anatomical pathology. I think the article should be left at anatomical. Nephron  T|C 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I agree you make a strong case that this actually is a "U.S. vs. Commonwealth" terminology issue, and I agree that in that case we should leave it as is. I'm not sure that is the case for the other three terminology disputes on the WikiProject Pathology talk page - I happen to know that all six of those terms are in use in slightly different contexts in the U.S., so I do think the google/pubmed counts are a good way to settle those disputes where possible. I will update the "preferred terminology" section on the project page to reflect that "Anatomical pathology" is preferred. -Rustavo 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a separate page for Surgical pathology?[edit]

(reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pathology)

Currently, surgical pathology is a redirect to anatomical pathology. I think it might be helpful to make these two separate pages, with anatomical pathology containing summaries and links to the various subdisciplines of anatomical pathology (e.g. Surgical pathology, cytopathology, autopsy, molecular pathology etc), as well as general info about the training, certification, and practice models of anatomical pathologists. I think we could write a really solid page on Surg Path alone, which would focus more on the actual role of surg path in the diagnosis and treatment planning of major disorders broken down by anatomical region, as well as an explanation of surg path workflow & techniques. Eventually, we could have the goal of making Pathology, Anatomical pathology and Surgical pathology very distinct pages in terms of subject matter, and each at good or featured article quality. This would be a pretty big change so, I wanted to put it up for comments. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and split it out. Nephron  T|C 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-page revision[edit]

(reposted from Talk:Pathology)
I just conducted large revisions to two pages (Pathology and Anatomical pathology) and created a third (Surgical pathology) to better coordinate and define the content on these three closely related topics. As a result of the revision, material that focuses on the overall skills, certification, and practice of anatomic pathologists was concentrated in the page Anatomical pathology, while some of this content was trimmed from Pathology, which has a much broader scope. Content specifically related to the skills, workflow, and subspecializations of surgical pathology were moved to the new page surgical pathology. I think this change is a significant improvement, but I welcome any feedback and additional editorial revisions. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Can we start to create specific anatomic texts? It would be fabulous to have an online lung biopsy, liver biopsy, gi biopsy, gyn biopsy, set of articles. TexasPathologist1 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

I know that first picture is important for the article, and I'm against censorship... But it was a shock to see it, and I'm not gonna be able to eat in a week. Couldn't you use another picture and take the current one in a smaller resolution and put it down on the side? 83.108.225.137 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The photos enhance the subject by their diverse contents (photomicrograph, surgical specimen, autopsy photo)--thus illustrating the diversity of anatomic pathology and thereby contributing substantively to the article itself. I vote that the images remain unchanged. Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, the picture is highly relevant and should be kept; even if it certainly also is disgusting . Power.corrupts (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree : this article is about pathology, and these pictures illustrate pathology well. Hey, anonymous, don't apply to Med school, Okay? Emmanuelm (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm with the first anonymous poster. How about not removing it, but moving it further down the page, so it isn't THE FIRST THING that smacks you in the face. Really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.13.89 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is that pathology is appropriately named "gross" in many cases. Because pathology is a vital field of medicine, this should be included as part of Wikipedia without a doubt. Obviously, those who have not seen, for example, a blackened gangrenous leg are going to be very upset to see an amputation, for example. Perhaps we could provision some sort of barrier, such as a thumbnail that must be clicked before the image can be seen, with a label such as "Warning. This photograph might be very disturbing to view for those who are not medical professionals. Readers who are not medical professionals should exhibit caution before viewing this photograph."TexasPathologist1 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos rearranged as requested. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of Anatomic vs. Anatomical[edit]

The previous discussion seemed to be directed toward "US vs Commonwealth" terminology but the issue runs deeper than that. It should be pointed out that "-ic" and "-al" are each an adjective suffix used for the identical purpose of rendering a noun or subject into an adjective. Almost anytime you see "-ical" it is actually incorrect (grammatically, at least). Biological, anatomical, physiological, pathological, are all grammatically incorrect (I feel bad for the American Association of Anatomists and their journal "The Anatomical Record"--but you'll also notice that this is an American publication using the incorrect "-ical" suffix--so the issue is not merely "US vs Commonwealth). I realize that "-ical" has fallen into common usage for centuries but it is still wrong (!) and perhaps this article title should be amended to reflect that fact. The only time "-ical" is correct is when "ic" are the final two letters of the word root (as in, physical or chemical, whose roots are "physic" and "chemic" and the combining forms are "physico-" and "chemico-" and thus require "-al" to render them adjectives). All that being said, "anatomic" is the correct form and the article should be titled correctly regardless of the most widely used form. WP policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)) states:

"Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)."

I find that Ackerman's Surgical Pathology uses the form "anatomic" and it seems to me that this source is as "verifiable" and "reliable" as you can get since this text is basically the bible for a practicing pathologist. Also, Stedman's Medical Dictionary uses the form "anatomic" but does not include an entry for "anatomical." This is also a verifiable and reliable source.

The title of this article really should be changed to "Anatomic Pathology." 76.20.178.54 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)MorbidAnatomy (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree : in Google, "anatomic pathology" returns more than twice as many pages as "anatomical pathology". I vote for the name change. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dorland's Medical Dictionary 27th edition (The most commonly used in Commonwealth countries) however only has "anatomical" and only has anatomic as "see anatomical". To just quote US books will obviously give you US spellings. In regards to physiological et. al. being technical grammatical errors they have been in usage for hundreds of years and striking a light for correct usage against the overwhelming tide of common usage is hardly the domain of wikipedia. Furthermore the RCPA trainee handbook (a de jure rather than de facto curriculum for pathology training) only ever uses anatomical because it is a Commonwealth text. Verifiable texts use either term depending on their country of origin so to be honest I see this more as an attempt to recouch the American vs British debate in new terms. Since quoting policy is all the rage: "American spellings need not be respelled to British standards, and vice versa;" except where "However an article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation" I think to sa that pathology is specifically associated with the USA is a bit of a stretch so under the policy it would seem the title should stay as "Anatomical Pathology". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.31.26 (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Regarding your comment, "striking a light for correct usage against the overwhelming tide of common usage is hardly the domain of wikipedia." Providing correct information is exactly the domain of every encyclopedia. This is not merely some attempt to "recouch the American vs British debate in new terms" but rather an attempt to improve the article. The current edition of Stedman's relies on the Terminologia Anatomica for it's anatomic terms, and throughout the book employs strict adherence to grammatically correct Latin and Greek. For that reason, the fact that it is a US book is irrelevant. The entry in Stedman's is neutral to nationality, and is quite simply correct. Your argument that more people use "anatomical" and so we should too even though it's wrong is like the "if all your friends jumped off a bridge...." line that mothers employ on their children. Wiki's policies are clearly in conflict with each other here--both terms are justified by verifiability and usage--so we must make the decision based on which is actually the correct word--not which is more popular. The correct form remains "anatomic" just as it always has been! The issue is that simple and the article would be improved if that fact were acknowledged. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that Terminolgia Anatomica actually describes itself as "International Anatomical Terminology"? In fact "International Anatomical Terminology" is the translation/subtitle used on the front cover? It in fact uses "anatomical" throughout. A copy of the front cover of a recent edition and some contents are available at the following link. http://books.google.com/books?id=0dYwOxPA6VcC&dq=Terminologia+Anatomica&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=mt51PNlZuX&sig=GH6bGXkNXvz6KCbFJQpcAQp3-DI&hl=en&ei=XGl1SrKEDYGekQWYrcCjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false Naturally if we're accepting this as the (or a) definitive source then it reinforces "Anatomical" as acceptable usage. You may not like the translation of "anatomica" into "anatomical" rather than "anatomic" but the fact remains that it has been accepted into English as a word (much like many others such as physiological) for hundreds of years, even if its initial translation didn't follow the general usage of suffixes it is a correct English word used by many many reliable (and indeed in the case of Terminolgia Anatomica definitive) sources. You might not personally like it but it's a correct English word and very widely used in this specific context, so the title of this article should remain. 124.170.133.112 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Podiatry perspective of rocker bottom shoe[edit]

Would anyone here be interested in looking at rocker bottom shoe with a view to making it more encyclopaedic. The marketing perspective of this topic wants to dominate the article instead of the podiatry perspective which is the only one relevant to Wikipedia unless the marketing/branding itself was independently notable. Donama (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What does the above have to do with pathology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.145.42 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)