From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Pathology was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Medicine / Pathology (Rated B-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pathology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

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

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)

<newline> Why Wikipedia do this for users. Is it a democracy or what? USA Pathology...heart disease that can harm our body and get sick of it can damage our tissue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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)

Undiscussed and uninvited deletions[edit]

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 ""

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)

More edits[edit]

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)

Biology and medicine[edit]

Pathologists are doctors; when not involved in patient care, morphologist is a more apt term. 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)

Well, now the article has gone far to long in the opposite direction. There is an excessive focus on pathology as a subdiscipline of human medicin. In biology pathology is used widely as a term for the study of all disease, in fungi, plants as well as in humans and other animals. The non-human pathology section should be expanded.
I agree with you in general, although bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so an article doesn't need to deal with all the possible meanings of a term, and should be focused instead on a unifying topic. There is no question that this article could benefit from more material on experimental pathology and verterinary / plant / fungal (?) pathology. IMHO it's an expansive and important topic, and the page could be significantly longer, although there definately are and should be subpages for most of the main subtopics. I don't see any need to trim the medical side. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 13:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The pathologist is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and management of human disease by laboratory methods.

Pathologists function in three broad areas; as diagnosticians, as teachers, and as investigators. Fundamental to the discipline of pathology is the need to integrate clinical information with physiological, biochemical and molecular laboratory studies, together with observations of tissue alterations. Pathologists in hospital and clinical laboratories practice as consultant physicians, developing and applying knowledge of tissue and laboratory analyses to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients. As teachers, they impart this knowledge of disease to their medical colleagues, to medical students, and to trainees at all levels. As scientists, they use the tools of laboratory science in clinical studies, disease models, and other experimental systems, to advance the understanding and treatment of disease.

Pathology has a special appeal to those who enjoy solving disease-related problems, using technologies based upon fundamental sciences ranging from biophysics to molecular genetics, as well as tools from the more traditional disciplines of anatomy, biochemistry, pharmacology, physiology and microbiology.

Tools of Pathology[edit]

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 ( | )

-- 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)

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

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:
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)

Major revision[edit]

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.

  • Thanks Rustavo for a wondbhbjbjbljb casionally, although few pathologists outside of forensics spend more than 5% of their time on autopsies. Rustavo 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rustavo, I just did a Medline search for the words "autopsy rate decline" and got 99 articles. Go ahead and quote your heart out :-)Emmanuelm 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (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)

Frequently asked Questions[edit]

  • What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of anatomical pathology?
  • What are some of the current issues in pathology?
The first question is a non-starter. Advantages? It is a major diagnostic modality. Disadvantages? While usually right, pathologists reserve the right to wrong on occasions! I don't think we can answer that question with verifiable opinion.
The second question: that is a huge question that this page cannot answer in a nutshell. Every disease has current issues, e.g. sample quality/storage, methodological issues, service provision, scoring systems, multidisciplinary process... JFW | T@lk 23:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New Section - Pathology as a science[edit]

Just added a new section, in which I tried to lay out basic scientific concepts in general pathology, as well as provide links from this article to build the web of pathology-related pages. I know that the scientific "pathology" described is still fairly human- (or perhaps vertebrate-) specific, but this is the area I'm familiar with, and I think it makes for the most conceptually coherent page. If others are still interested in working in plant and fungal path, I'm open to suggestions on how to do this. I may move some material from the "pathology as a medical specialty" section to more specific pages such as anatomical pathology and clinical pathology.

Also, the new section desperately needs some pictures! -RustavoTalk/Contribs 06:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-page revision[edit]

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 realated 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 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing topic (Phytopathology)[edit]

There are anything about Phytopathology in this article. --Ricardo 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a link to that page near the bottom (under non-human pathology). If you'd like to write a more complete summary paragraph of that topic for this page, please go ahead. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pathology of Prostatitis NEEDED[edit]

Can someone please help on the Prostatitis page. The pathology of prostatitis, chronic prostatitis, and chronic pelvic pain syndromes needs to be better explained. Chronic prostatitis/CPPS IIIa is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. About 50% of all men with CPPS III also have urethral leukocytosis. Please explain the implications of the pathology. ReasonableLogicalMan 13:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need help on inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology[edit]

I have started a new page called inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology and would like some help answering these questions: What are the inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? How many of them are there? What are the most common inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? What kind of inflammation is associated with inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? And how many kinds of inflammation patterns are there in inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? If anyone has the time to contribute it would be appreciated. After seeing the pictures here, I am also wondering if we could come up with a set of pictures showing the inflammatory patterns in the common inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pathology & Software[edit]

Suggest have a section for this Sanjiv swarup (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I known nothing about LIS, so I will not contribute much. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Choristoma is a specific tumor category[edit]

The section "Choristoma" under the section "Pathology as a science" seems out of context. A choristoma is a specific category of tumor, like carcinoma, sarcoma, hamartoma, lymphoma, etc. The entries under this heading like cell death, neoplasia, repair, are general disease processes, which make some sense under this heading. I would suggest removing the paragraph on choristoma, or make it an example under neoplasia (although it is technically not a neoplasm). Carcinomas, lymphomas/leukemias, and sarcomas are vastly more common than choristomas, and would be better examples of neoplasia. --Dfuerpo (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I too believe choristoma is out of place here. Be bold, delete it. I fixed the redirection of choristoma to hamartoma. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Major re-organization of the article[edit]

I used this article as an exercise to learn to apply the Wikipedia:summary style using WP:transclusion of lead paragraphs. I admit that it is a bit experimental and that it forced me to create articles I would not have otherwise, but I like the result. For those not familiar with transclusion, the text you are reading in this article (the "summary" article) is, in fact, from other pages (the "main" articles), each clearly identified in the appropriate place. To edit the text, you must go to the main articles. Discussed here. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Emmanuelm on his talk page, I preferred the original form of the content on this page. I think in its current form, the page Pathology is too brief for such a large and significant topic, and I think many readers would prefer consolidated information rather than having to follow so many links. As Emmanuelm himself admits, some of the daughter pages seem forced and unnecessary (e.g. general pathology - what is the difference between this and plain ol' pathology?). Perhaps if more of the text from the newly created daughter pagers were present on this page, it would be closer to its original form and I might be happier with it. I am interested in other readers' thought on this. RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Rustavo, This reorganization was an exercise in application of the WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD styles using a new tool, WP:Transclusion. I understand your criticisms. In fact, I share some of your opinions. To be honest, however, these criticisms should be weighed against the several advantages of this format:
  • Reduction in duplications between the articles,
  • Reduction in the amount of maintenance work by editors (like you),
  • Improved clarity in the relationship between closely-related articles. This is particularly important for the non-pathologist reader.
There is room to improve the readability of the Pathology article by editing the lead paragraph of the various main ("daughter") articles. Alternatively, the "onlyinclude" markups could be moved to avoid the first, more general, sentence of the lead that is repeated several times. Either way, I am not ready to abandon this idea yet. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Title General Pathology needs to change?[edit]

Discussed in Talk:General pathology. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

General Pathology is a complete mess...[edit]

Unfortunately, this previously informative discussion of pathology has become a complete jumble of topics from medicine to basic plant science. It needs to be broken up into several different topics to be useful. 17 July 2008

Mass reversion to Dec 1 2008[edit]

This article has become a mess. I reverted it to its Dec 1st version by Gitler.

Please remember that this summary article is made up of transcluded lead paragraphs. To change its content, change the lead paragraph of the appropriate sub-article. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i love branden —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pathology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. The majority of the article is lacking citations. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The long list of external links should be trimmed (perhaps they can be converted to citations if they are reliable). Although the article has been delisted, the article can be returned to GA status by addressing the above points and giving the article a good copyedit. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Experimental transclusion technique[edit]

The use of lead transclusions for section summaries has led directly to this article being delisted as a GA for lack of sources. This tequnique makes it much more difficult to improve articles, as an editor would have to source the entirety of all the subarticles to ensure the lead does not summarise anything uncited, or rewrite the leads so that instead of summarising the articles, they only cover whatever is cited. Hence i have removed the transclusions pending much wider input on this method, showing that there is consensus for this in spite of the drawbacks on article improving.YobMod 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Red links are associated with the following.....[edit]

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

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

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

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

Missing the psychology related polyseme ("Pathologies").[edit]

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[edit]

-- (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.-- (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

History of Pathology[edit]

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)



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) (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[edit]

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) (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 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (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) (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. (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)

Molecular pathologic epidemiology is in the wrong place[edit]

Molecular pathologic epidemiology is not a subspecialty of pathology. It is, by the author's own account, a subdivision of epidemiology and should be included on that page. It has nothing to do with pathology and should thus not be included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Reasons for RfC:

  1. This article now focuses on one aspect of the term pathology only, viz pathology as a medical specialty. The question, which was never fully discussed, is whether this article should focus on "medical pathology" or cover more, like veterinary pathology, and other terms which utilize the word pathology? Much content which does not meet a narrow meaning of the term has been removed, since roughly last Summer, and these edits have taken place without any real consensus. C.f. a version before these edits (presumably the same person working from different IPs since they all geolocate to the same city): [2] Most of the deleted content was summary style sections with their own dedicated pages, so in all likelihood not a lot has been completely lost.
  2. As a specific example of the above issue, should the section about molecular pathologic epidemiology, which can be seen in the recent edit history here [3], remain in this article?
  3. The article now focuses on American training pathways, which are barely of interest to general american readers let alone readers outside america. Lesion (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Pathology is merely a word. The term generally encompasses the medical practice definition. As such this should be the focus of the article, with other things that are offshoots of pathology being linked either as a disambiguation or as their own article.
Pathology as a medical discipline is not unique to this regard; radiology is a similar specialty yet the term radiology does not exclusively refer to medical diagnostic radiology. Yet, on the radiology page, the topic is defined by the medical application of it exclusively; there is no mention of veterniary radiology, plant radiology, machine radiology, radiology in military applications and security etc.
Pathology as a medical specialty has nothing to do with pathology as a vet specialty, psychopathology, computer pathology, systems pathology, or molecular pathologic epidemiology.
As such, I disagree with you and think that the page was losing focus prior to the edits made last summer.
I will also mention that the header of the article defines this page as "pathology as a medical specialty" and links to a disambiguation page for those interested in other meanings of the word. The deletions I have made are appropriate since they did not fall under the umbrella of pathology as a medical specialty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
If you think the content should be merged elsewhere, the correct thing to do would be to start a discussion about whether the content should be merged. I have done this for you below on this occasion. Lesion (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not make large removals of content without an adequate explanation or discussion first, with discussion these could at least be moved to a more relevant page (if consensus is reached in that direction). There are no space constraints so I don't see a problem mentioning other fields of pathology. Am a little confused as to what the specifics are here, it is possible a more targeted RfC may produce more fruitful results. --LT910001 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with LT910001 that we need to refine this discussion a little and perhaps begin looking at the issue on a point-by-point basis, as the RfC is rather vaguely defined at present. That being said, basing my judgement on the only other two stances noted above, I very much favour Lesion's perspective and think it is by far more consistent with policy. Pathology as a namespace should reflect all of the subordinate subjects which share the general principles the word pathology itself denotes. Looking at the length of this article, it doesn't even begin to address the depth of the concept of pathology (even if we were restricting it to anthropic medical science), and clearly there is room for further discussion. Even if we did come to a point where information needed to be spun out, this namespace should reserved for the general concepts and principles. Certainly I have no issue with human medical pathology taking center stage, as it is the most likely science to be referred to via the shorthand of simply pathology, but I do not feel it is remotely appropriate to do this to exclusion of all other types of pathology. In particular, I find IP 174's statement -- "Pathology as a medical specialty has nothing to do with pathology as a vet specialty, psychopathology..." -- to be nothing short of nonsensical; clearly the physiological, microbiological, epidemiological fields at least all share a great deal in common and are developed from a common tradition, research, and practices, and are inextricably linked further by the fact that species can share pathologies and the study of such in one species often proceeds from that of another. A division along these lines is awkwardly artificial and highly counter-intuitive if we are to present an overview of modern pathology practices that is consistent with encyclopedic tone. Lesion, if you would be so kind, could you select a version of the article from a period when you feel the content was more balanced, so we can more accurately see the difference we are debating? Snow (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have more clearly laid out my reasons for calling an RfC above, including a diff to compare with the current version. Lesion (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is becoming unwieldy. The term pathology has so many meanings, many of which do not overlap, that to do one page that covers all of them would make it unfocused and not useful to the general populace. I still stand by my bold edits and believe they are appropriate.

A disambiguation page would be a better way for people to select which aspect of the term they are most interested in rather than sifting through multiple unrelated topics that so happen to share the term. MPE has nothing to do with the medical practice of pathology yet is included on a page about medical pathology. Same with veterinary, psycho, etc.

Lumping it all together makes it pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"This page is becoming unwieldy. The term pathology has so many meanings, many of which do not overlap, that to do one page that covers all of them would make it unfocused and not useful to the general populace. I still stand by my bold edits and believe they are appropriate."
The page is becoming unwieldy? That seems a strange assertion when, looking at the diffs, huge chunks of valid content have been stripped away over a prolonged period. In any event, it doesn't seem particularly unwieldy to me, nor particularly do some much older (and fuller) versions. Can you be more specific as to what segments or organizational features in particular are likely to confuse the reader? Or is it just down to that one general complaint that there are too many subtopics? Because, I have to tell you, your perspective on that and how it applies to this page does not seem at all nominal with regards to encyclopedic tone, Wikipedia policy and general consensus on these matters. The fact we are writing for a general audience is exactly why we tend to cast our nets wide when it comes to a broad subject of this nature; summarizing the the breadth of a central concept, while linking generously to the full articles on the subfields is precisely what a page like this meant to do. That you stand by your decision is fairly obvious, but I think maybe you ought to review and reassess the relevant policies and community consensus on this matter, because they don't seem lay where you think they do. Certainly there is no chance this is going to end up a disambiguation page when we are dealing with a primary topic of such breadth and significance:
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept articles: "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual."
Returning to your perspective: "A disambiguation page would be a better way for people to select which aspect of the term they are most interested in rather than sifting through multiple unrelated topics that so happen to share the term. MPE has nothing to do with the medical practice of pathology yet is included on a page about medical pathology. Same with veterinary, psycho, etc."
I don't think you're going to get any traction with other editors using those arguments either. How it is that you don't think that molecular pathological epidemiology, veterinary pathology and psychopathology are not deeply intertwined with the central concepts and practice of general medical pathology or subjects worthy of short summation and appropriate linking here is a bit perplexing to me, if I'm to be honest. These fields all inform upon one-another deeply and constantly and indeed are constituents of one-another and (usually) needless to say, of the general subject of pathology. I've pointed just a few of the obvious links out above, and there are countless more -- I mean it, we could spend lifetimes discussing the links between these fields and the other topics that you have unilaterally designated significant enough to be left in.
"Lumping it all together makes it pedantic."
No, on Wikipedia it's considered standard summary style. Frankly I think your laissez-faire attitude with regard to removing well-sourced and important information (and the work of other editors) is a little cavalier. And WP:BEBOLD is not really an argument for retaining changes to an article, especially in the event of large-scale removal of content. If anything, in cases where you've moved ahead on the "be bold" principle, it's all the more reason to pause in pressing forward on that path if you meet resistance from other editors. But more to the point, you seem to want to reserve the page for a very narrow range of concepts that you've designated the important ones, but I think most all of the sections under debate are relevant to the study and practice of the central scientific subject of pathology and, most importantly, that the average user would benefit from summary and linking on this page. We have detailed articles which focus on the medical specialties and methods you want to emphasize (to the full exclusion of others); this name space needs to serve the purpose of summarizing on the broader empirical concept and its many subdomains.
Edit: As three people is not enough to settle a matter of consensus on such an important article and (confusingly) we've yet to hear from more editors, I have posted notices of this discussion at WP:Wikiproject Medicine, WP:Wikiproject Anatomy and WP:Wikiproject Biology. Snow (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidently the IP editor hails from the field of "medical pathology" and clearly has knowledge to expand this article in that regard, and I don't think this should be discouraged as a knee-jerk reaction to someone editing who has not chosen to make a user account, as so often happens. I have no strong opinion either way about how the article should be scoped, I just felt more opinions were required. To me, the main meaning of the term pathology is disease itself, rather than pathology as a medical specialty, although these are closely related undeniably. Lesion (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all points. I've no qualms about an involved editor being unregistered; plenty such contribute in a meaningful way to articles on wide variety of subjects (I myself edited for over half a decade as an IP before I finally registered). In any event policy requires us to treat the contributions of such editors, in most circumstances, as being as valid as those of registered editors. That being said -- and not wanting to get to get too distracted by the motives of editors, which are generally less germane than their positions and the content of their edits -- I share your impression that said editor is in some way invested (be it professionally or casually) in pathology as a medical specialty. Which means his additive contributions on the subject are quite welcome. However, pathology as a science is a much larger subject than that narrow context and this namespace is clearly the appropriate place to summarize the breadth of that subject, not fixate upon pathology solely within pathology as a medical specialty, for which we already had an article, though apparently it has now been merged with this one. I'm indifferent to that move, frankly; I think that content is well at home here or in a separate article, either way. Regardless, efforts to delete large scale portions of an article, the likes of which seem to have been underway here for some time, really require broad consensus of the type that said editor does not have (and is unlikely to get in this case, in my opinion). It would be one thing is sections had been retained and merely edited down for consistency with summary style, but excising all references to (and links to full articles for) multiple subfields which are clearly constituents of pathology as a scientific discipline, just to suit the (frankly arbitrary and confusing) sentiments of one editor as to which constitute the "important" areas of pathology, is just not appropriate. I recognize I'm being a little verbose and redundant here, but only because this is such a massively important article and of central relevance to countless others, for which (using all consensus on application of policy and common sense) it should serve as a hub. The reductionist approach of (apparently?) one editor (the IP in question) has altered the article to a state where it seriously underserves in that regard. Snow (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
We used to have that as a separate article, it was merged here after the discussion above several months ago. I believe the content is now under the heading "Training" in this article. Lesion (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was just exploring that move, but failed to update my posting before your response. :) Above post has been altered to reflect the current state of affairs. Snow (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

On point #3, about training: so long as Pathologist redirects here, then there should be information about the career aspect (training, licensing, salary, type of work) in this article.

On point #2, I don't understand why MPE (which is about diseases, after all) would not be considered essentially "medical".

On point #1, is there actually any kind of pathology that isn't about some kind of "medicine" (people medicine, animal medicine, plant medicine)? If it's all some aspect of medicine (broadly defined), then they all belong here. If there's something truly non-medical—maybe computer pathology?—then that should be separated out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, see Pathology (disambiguation) for examples. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists talk about pathologies all the time. I've heard the term used in CS, too, to describe a data set that causes a normally well-behaved algorithm to display worst-case performance. --Mark viking (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I do think it serves though to delineate a separation between the biological and non-bioligical sciences though. As you say, there are examples on the disambiguation page, and I think that page is doing an excellent job of keeping everything straight just the way it's written at present. I think it's solely the narrower division of clinical laboratory practice and the rest of pathology as a general domain of (biological) knowledge that is going to be the sticking point.Snow (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
This strikes me as the obvious and appropriate level of separation as well. We do have an article Clinical pathology which seems a much more appropriate home to exclusive discussion of pathology as a medical practice. Indeed, I dare say it might be better to move or replicate the "pathology as a profession" content there. Or ideally summarize it here and treat it in detail there. Perhaps that is a compromise that will suit 70.50 as well, given that is a location that would be ideal for exclusively emphasizing the aspects of medical practice. That's essentially what this debate has boiled down to; whether this name space is meant to represent the broader science, or medical practice narrowly. I think clearly policy directs us to the former, but perhaps it will be a moot point if we make use of a preexistent article that is perfect to contextualize just the medical approach. It's noteworthy that such a division would be reflective of an actual division in perception between the two fields (practice and research). I can't fathom a researcher ever saying that veterinary pathology has nothing to do with anthropic pathology; their massive roles as vectors and surrogate test subjects alone make that statement baffling, from my perspective. I'd ask the IP this question in response: is Mad Cow Disease an issue of medical or veterinary pathology? On the other hand, medical practitioners, particularly those who work in commercial medical labs, refine a very specific skillset, doing countless iterations of tasks that are quite complex. In this sense, there is even a striking difference between these practitioners and other pathology-specialized health workers (diagnosing physicians, for example). Clinical pathology is one of the major practical branches of pathology and should be given strong weight throughout those pages it is relevant to (here in significant summary, in great detail at it's self-titled namespace, and throughout the countless medical articles to which it is of significant relevance), but I maintain it a useful subdivision of a much bigger branch of human knowledge which should be summarized broadly here. As to the truly non-biological pages, Pathology (disambiguation) serves perfectly for corralling them together; perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a film and a death metal band by the name, for example. Snow (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Am actually quite happy with the article as it stands. Am a little confused by what we are discussing at the moment. This sentence "Pathology is the precise study and diagnosis of disease" seems to eloquently express that pathology does not just relate to humans - that definition would be curious, at best. If you want to move this page (eg to resolve the speciality/disease ambiguity), suggest you propose a move and then we can support/oppose below. --LT910001 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
No, insofar as I've seen, no one is proposing that we move the page elsewhere (at least, certainly not part and parcel). The present RfC concerns large amounts of content (useful and well sourced) that have been removed from the article over the last year, apparently by one editor (the IP who has commented above, if I am reading his and Lesion's comments and the diffs correctly) who felt that this article should be narrowly focused on the sub-topic of the practice of pathology as a medical/diagnostic profession, as opposed to treating the much broader subject of pathology as a general science and all the other areas of research and expertise (medical and otherwise) contained therein. This has lead to numerous sections that were found on this article been removed in their entirety and the article as whole moving away from the the summary style that is called for with broad concept articles. This is inconsistent with policy/general community consensus, in my opinion, and indeed the consensus in this RfC seems to reflect that, though mostly people have been talking more in terms of common sense than policy per say. I should say rough consensus though, since, despite the importance of this page, we have relatively few editors voicing their opinions so far, which still strikes me as odd. Still, of those editors involved, only the IP seems to disagree that this namespace should be reserved for the broad-concept of pathology, rather than one class of profession within that subject. So I'm not proposing a move, but I am strenuously supporting the Lesion's effort to stem the removal of more content that does not fit the IP's narrower vision for the article and indeed to reconstitute much of the material that was removed. However, I do believe any and all content on this article, as a broad-concept article, needs to adhere to summary style conventions, whether it be the subsections on various forms of pathology sciences or the training and practice of specific types of medical professionals. That is why I reached out to you; if I'm reading the history right, you suggested and implemented an effort to merge the content formerly at Pathology as a medical specialty into this page. After much of the broad-concept material was stripped from this page, it probably did seem like an appropriate enough place for all of that content, but if this page is to restored to a broad-concept article (and I cannot imagine how that will not happen once enough experienced editors comment) then, those sections will be subject to more stringent summary style, the likes of which other sections of this page adhere to (as did the removed sections from what I can see). That means the more detailed discussion of the professions in question (their methods and especially the detailed information on their training and education/career paths in various countries) would be best moved to an article with a narrower scope. But to be clear, I'm not proposing to revert your move and place that content back at Pathology as a medical specialty; the appropriate home for that content seems to me to be Clinical pathology, which by definition already treats the exact narrower subject that content concerns. So, to be further clear, the info currently in the "Training" section here would be moved in its entirety to Clinical pathology and well-summarized here -- even as previously-removed summary sections which link to other subdomains of pathology are restored on this page and just as heavily scrutinized for summary style. That is what I'm proposing. I think that consensus, in the broader community sense and with regard to those who have commented here, supports such a move, but I'd like to see some more involvement in the RfC to settle the matter. In the meantime, since this would mean altering your recently-applied move of content, I thought it would be a good use of time to get you on board, so we don't end up with three competing perspectives instead of two. Snow (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the original IP who has edited the page against some of your preferences.

A few things, some of which are reiterations.

1. Pathology is a very broad word whose dictionary concept can, and does, apply to multiple different facets of reality, be it medicine, plant science, research, systems, computers, etc. Good luck trying to be all-encompassing with that! The word can be applied to anything, and often is.

2. Pathology as a medical specialty has little if anything to do with plant pathology, veterinary pathology (yes, Mad Cow is but one disease that crosses thresholds but for the great majority of things there is no overlap, same as how both dogs and humans have radiographs but the anatomy is entirely different and does not overlap in a useful way). To include all aspects of the definition of pathology is, as I have said, unwieldy.

3. However, since you seem pretty insistent on putting all things that have to do with the word pathology on this page, I suggest that a broad yet superficial listing of all things that are involved in pathology be included here, including computer pathology etc. with links to each subject therein. Furthermore, other medical pages that are not treated with the same broad scope, such as the radiology page, should be broadened to include such things like radiology in airport security, radiology in military applications; or oncology, with dog oncology, elephant oncology, plant oncology etc. Let's be all inclusive!

4. The clinical pathology page is not an appropriate place to dump the medical pathology information. Clinical pathology is a specific subdiscipline of laboratory medicine that involves the analysis of bodily fluids etc by automated high precision machines and again is not anatomical pathology. The consultant role of pathology is assumed by anatomical pathology and its subdisciplines (forensics, dermpath etc). To combined anatomical pathology with clinical pathology and call them the same thing is inaccurate.

5. Molecular pathological epidemiology is not medicine, plain and simple. It is the use of a particular technique to compile epidemiologic data for research purposes. Pathologists do not do this, epidemiologists do. As such, to label it as a specific subdiscipline of pathology is, again, inaccurate. There exists no ACGME-accredited specialty of "molecular pathological epidemology"; including such a topic suggests an editor wanted to display their thesis subject as if it were a central portion of pathology, which it is not. I do not disagree that it may have relevance to medicine (though it is not the practice of it), but it should be included under the umbrella of epidemiology, for it is more congruent with that subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll treat these arguments point-by-point:
"1. Pathology is a very broad word whose dictionary concept can, and does, apply to multiple different facets of reality, be it medicine, plant science, research, systems, computers, etc. Good luck trying to be all-encompassing with that! The word can be applied to anything, and often is."
Yes, pathology is a very broad word, which is why, at this namespace, a broad concept article is called for, by established policy and community consensus. We don't particularly need much luck finding the means to deal with multiple concepts intersecting through common terminology; we do it every day on Wikipedia. Specifically, we do it through summary style; we don't need to treat each of those subjects in detail, we only need summarize them here and link to their fuller treatment in their own articles. It's not that difficult and this approach is considered by community consensus to be most consistent with encyclopedic tone and the diffuse needs of Wikipedia users. All of that being said, I feel you're being incredibly hyperbolic when you suggest that if we allow more subjects than the article has been presently reduced to that we then have to allow "anything under the sun"; looking above, the comments of other editors so far clearly reflect that we all agree that there is a central concept that should take precedence in this article - we simply disagree with you about where the borders of that concept are - I in particular find your definition a little arbitrary, bordering on nonsensical. Again, looking above, it seems to me that the broad definition most editors accept as ideal to this location is "the collective empirical understanding of the origin and development of disease within a living organism as understood through a broad collection of medical and biological disciplines." That's a fair condensing of the core meaning of pathology as a biological field of inquiry and a much more appropriate in scope than the vastly narrower (and again, arbitrary) selection of professions and techniques you want discussed here, to the exclusion of many subjects which are obviously typically considered areas within the purview of general (that is, disease-oriented) pathology -- in both common usage of the term and within the scientific and medical communities. Any other usages (and yes, there are many) can be relegated to and organized on the disambig page (again, consistent with policy and common sense and already implemented in any event).
"2. Pathology as a medical specialty has little if anything to do with plant pathology, veterinary pathology (yes, Mad Cow is but one disease that crosses thresholds but for the great majority of things there is no overlap, same as how both dogs and humans have radiographs but the anatomy is entirely different and does not overlap in a useful way). To include all aspects of the definition of pathology is, as I have said, unwieldy."
Even if we accepted the premise that pathology was a species-discreet phenomena rather than the deeply interconnected subject that it so obviously is (which is an absurd statement to my mind, whether your focus is on the broader scientific concept or the clinical one), this namespace would still be the appropriate place to discuss the broader concept. You keep using the term "unwieldy" in this discussion, but I fail to see how it applies here; this is a common approach to articles related to broad fields of human knowledge - we discuss the central unifying principles in the lead and initial sections and then summarize the various subdisciplines, linking to them for fuller details for those users interested. Consider Anatomy, Psychology, Physics, or Philosophy, to consider just a few of the more notable of of thousands or broad-concept articles that use this approach with regard subject matters that are at least as diffuse as the broad concept of pathology and manage to do it and stay organized, accessible, and consistent with encyclopedic tone. This article is presently tiny in relation to the significance of the subject - there is plenty of room to grow it to reflect the broad uses people are likely to have for it.
"3. However, since you seem pretty insistent on putting all things that have to do with the word pathology on this page, I suggest that a broad yet superficial listing of all things that are involved in pathology be included here, including computer pathology etc. with links to each subject therein. Furthermore, other medical pages that are not treated with the same broad scope, such as the radiology page, should be broadened to include such things like radiology in airport security, radiology in military applications; or oncology, with dog oncology, elephant oncology, plant oncology etc. Let's be all inclusive!"
Again, pure hyperbole (and in a pretty histrionic, non-productive tone to boot). Just because we don't agree with you on the content which belongs on this page, surely we want (or have to agree to) anything which uses similar terminology here? No, again if you reflect upon the comments above, it is clear we want to establish an appropriate distinction and focus for this page, but mostly we cannot (or at least I cannot) fathom how a thorough and balanced treatment of pathology (as a biological discipline) can proceed without examining the breadth of it's subdisciplines, not just specific medical practices and training. Please note further that, beyond the common sense arguments others have made here, there is an even more compelling reason to treat many of the subjects you would like to exclude here as in fact part of the field of pathology -- namely that our sources treat them as such, and we don't utilize our personal impressions here but rather reflect the facts as they presented in our sources. Doing otherwise, even so-far as concerns weight, is a form of original research, which operates against a pillar policy. As to what other pages are doing, you should probably read this, as its a general principle that Wikipedia editors apply on talk pages which you seem unfamiliar with; in summary, what other contributors have applied to another article does not really have any influence over the present discussion with regard to being consistent with policy in our approach here. We can't possible respond to the broad implications of your strawman argument for every subject matter out there, but don't doubt that these arguments occur regularly on most all articles beyond a certain level of significance and editors have to find ways to strike the right balance for inclusion of content. Here, you are in the minority of debate and you can't augment your position with experienced editors by throwing out doomsday scenarios of the absolute chaos that would reign if we don't use the narrow inclusion of content that you want; the policies that have been prevented to you here as relevant to this article are used throughout Wikipedia and represent long-standing community consensus on what works best for organization purposes and consistency with encyclopedic tone.
"4. The clinical pathology page is not an appropriate place to dump the medical pathology information. Clinical pathology is a specific subdiscipline of laboratory medicine that involves the analysis of bodily fluids etc by automated high precision machines and again is not anatomical pathology. The consultant role of pathology is assumed by anatomical pathology and its subdisciplines (forensics, dermpath etc). To combined anatomical pathology with clinical pathology and call them the same thing is inaccurate."
Fair enough. This might be the only point I agree with you on; clinical and anatomical pathology are clearly discreet fields, so lumping all training into one or the other article is not ideal. But note that this situation has arisen as a result of the fact that you initiated a merger of that content from another article that it previously resided at (Pathology as a medical specialty) in order to further narrow the tone of this article to medical specialties you think are the sole topic that should be found here. My suggestion was an attempt at compromise, so that not all of your efforts were reversed and we could arrive at some consensus. But now that you've highlighted the matter, I actually have to agree; all of the content found in the "Training" section here which has been incorporated from Pathology as a medical specialty is not necessarily appropriate for Clinical pathology. So we have two options, if we are to be consistent with policy: we can move the bulk of that content back to Pathology as a medical specialty (really the best option) or we can divide it between Clinical pathology and Anatomical pathology. Regardless, it's clear that the information should be summarized here, not detailed in full.
"5. Molecular pathological epidemiology is not medicine, plain and simple. It is the use of a particular technique to compile epidemiologic data for research purposes. Pathologists do not do this, epidemiologists do. As such, to label it as a specific subdiscipline of pathology is, again, inaccurate. There exists no ACGME-accredited specialty of "molecular pathological epidemology"; including such a topic suggests an editor wanted to display their thesis subject as if it were a central portion of pathology, which it is not. I do not disagree that it may have relevance to medicine (though it is not the practice of it), but it should be included under the umbrella of epidemiology, for it is more congruent with that subject."
MPE is certainly epidemiological in nature, no doubt. It's also completely dependent upon the methodology of pathology and clearly a subdiscipline of pathology as a broad science. It creates models for epidemiology based upon the understanding of the molecular pathology of the disease in question. These are the very first two sentences from the lead of Molecular pathological epidemiology:
"Molecular pathological epidemiology (abbreviated as MPE, also called "molecular pathologic epidemiology") is a specific discipline of epidemiology, and also that of pathology. It is defined as "epidemiology of molecular pathology and heterogeneity of disease". MPE represents not only an integrative interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary) science of molecular pathology and epidemiology, but also an interface between biomedical science and public health." [bolding for emphasis is mine.]
Once again, the discrepancy arises from your narrow impression of what constitutes "actual" pathology, a perspective not shared by the rest of us (nor obviously by the editors of that article nor indeed by any researcher, practitioner or other specialist in the field that I've ever met or heard of) and one that is certainly not supported by any kind of secondary source, whereas our sources do agree that the subjects that you have removed from this article all constitute discipline within the field of pathology. And from a policy standpoint, that's really what this comes down to, and perhaps where we should have started from the beginning; your decision to define this page in accordance with what you consider the "real" or "significant" branch of pathology is a kind of original research that goes against everything reflected in our sources (and in the general scientific community associated with pathology). But your personal perspectives on what the word means cannot supplant WP:Verifiability or the general encyclopedic needs of the article and those it is intended to serve. Snow (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems again not much interest in this issue, just as when I raised it last Summer... So far seems 2 users above expressed a desire that the article should not be narrowly scoped. Readin ghtis whole thread, I think at least if the article stays with its current scope, it should have a more descriptive hatnote to point to the DAB. It would seem more precise to rename this whole article as it stands to "Pathology (medical specialty)"? Lesion (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem likely to lead to a stable solution. Clearly there's going to be some article located at Pathology and, as you know, a good bit of the information here came from an article that already existed at very nearly an identical name space to the one you propose. Note that the number of involved editors supporting a given position in a particular RfC does not determine the course of action taken; consistency with policy (the broader community consensus) is the most important determinate factor of how we proceed (and if the RfC need be closed by administrator, he or she will note such points of consistency), so even if the consensus to revert the article is small, it will almost certainly win out in the long run, as this is a classic and obvious example of a broad-concept article. But we needn't rush consensus; believe me, I share your confusion that such an important page lacks the traffic of editors to quickly resolve this matter (which is, to my thinking, nothing less than a SNOW issue), but again, this case is so cut-and-dry (both as regards general and common-sense definitions of the word and as concerns how our policies are specifically applied), that I think further editor involvement (however long it takes) can only ever end up in the broad-concept content being restored. Frankly, if I had the time to do it, I'd start reconstituting the information myself. It's sourced, factual, and, by any reasonable definition, entirely germane to the subject of the article. In short, there is absolutely zero policy reason anyone would have to remove it. And, worse case scenario, if it came to 3RR, they would have to explain their persistent removal of sourced content and, insofar as the above discussions are concerned, absolutely no rationale for doing so has been provided which is consistent with policy. Just a lot of "it should be, because I feel this is a part of real pathology, and that isn't" type of arguments. But we don't use our own impressions on Wikipedia; we follow what our sources say, and our sources (unsurprisingly) do not reflect the bizarrely personal, specific and arbitrary division that one editor is trying to impose here. No, the solution is clearly that all major aspects of pathology should be summarized here; major subdisciplines that have been removed but which are significant fields within the science should have their summaries restored and detailed information on specific professions and career paths should be returned to Pathology as a medical specialty or to other more focused articles within the vein of pathology. But again, I don't have the time for such a large undertaking just now, and in any event, I'd still rather wait on further editor input and a larger consensus so that this issue is settled a little more formally and thoroughly (so we don't have to go through this in six months again. That being said, if anyone else takes it upon themselves to begin re-integrating that (very much sourced, very much appropriate) content, they'd have my full support. Up to and including seeking administrator support if other editors remove it again without a solid policy argument. I'm not just paying lip service above when I say I feel establishing consensus first is the better way to go, but let's be clear: especially as both sides have had there say and one has presented extensive policy arguments and the other nothing more than a personal standard, we don't have to wait forever for further editor involvement in order to pursue an approach to this page that is completely in keeping with community consensus on such matters. In short, give it a little more time for the hope of further community input, but failing that, go forward with the exact approach dictated by policy; half measures are only going to leave both sides equally dissatisfied with the outcome and, more importantly, the articles in a state where their content is disorganized in a hod-podge manner. Snow (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be able to give a short outline (i.e. headers) of how you think the article should be below? Lesion (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, of course. Starting at the top, the lead is alright, still reflecting the older and appropriate broad-basis of the article, but I still think it could stand to be a little longer and a little better organized. In the first few sentences in particular, there is a focus on defining the word and all of it's possible morphological extractions. It's useful information, but should probably be found lower in the lead or even in it's own section. The lead just needs a little tightening in general, in ways that really have nothing to do with the debate above, but which I felt I might mention all the same, though I might just edit that section myself a bit. Following the lead, the first section ought to be the "History" section. This will allow us to discuss the subject as a general field of human inquiry and look at the overarching elements that apply to all pathology while examining how they evolved with modern science and medicine. The section also serves as a good cache-all for any general information that is to voluminous for the lead. Note that this section previously was the first section after the lead, but was moved to the bottom, apparently as part of the broader and ill-advised effort to emphasize the handful of medical specialties that has been discussed at length above. Following this should be, as exists now, a section for subdisciplines, which should ordered roughly by their breadth of concept and their general relevance both, but with some tiering to show that some areas are more interrelated than others. My suggestion would be roughly this:
  • General medical pathology
    • Anatomical pathology
    • Clinical pathology
    • Molecular pathology
    • Forensic pathology
  • Systems-specific fields
    • Dermatopathology
    • Hematopathology
    • Renal pathology
    • Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
    • And any other specialties applicable
  • Psychopathology
  • Non-human pathology
    • Veterinary pathology
    • Phytopathology
Following this section is where I would put the "Training" section, which should be renamed to "Medical specialties and training". And, as per above discussion, there should only be summary information here (as with all sections that precede it) and the bulk of that content should be moved back to it's own article or to whatever other field-specific articles might prove suitable -- certainly the nation-by-nation addendums are overkill for a summary section. And then of course, sections for "See also", References, Categories, ect. So, in the end, something like this:
  • History
  • General medical and research pathology
    • Anatomical pathology
    • Clinical pathology
    • Molecular pathology
    • Forensic pathology
  • Systems-specific fields
    • Dermatopathology
    • Hematopathology
    • Renal pathology
    • Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
    • And any other specialties applicable
  • Psychopathology
  • Non-human pathology
    • Veterinary pathology
    • Phytopathology
  • Specialties, training, and accreditation
  • See also
  • References
That would roughly be my suggested outline. On a last note, forgive the delay in responding -- saw the request a couple of days ago but my editing time has been limited. Snow (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose an article dedicated only to medical pathology. The article should give a summary of all of the usages and provide links to fork articles (where needed) for long sections (ie medical pathology could be one example)-- KeithbobTalk 18:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise I think that is 5 people who have stated they would prefer a more generally scoped article now. Perhaps there is consensus. Lesion (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I do tend to think there is consensus here, especially as regards the broader community consensus on how broad-topic articles are to function. On the flip side, the IP who more-or-less unilaterally instituted to broad deletion of content in this article and the narrowing of its focus has yet to provide a substantive policy argument to support that approach (because really he can't, given where overwhelming community consensus and policy on this matter lay). So I think anyone who wants to proceed with restoring those sections and re-working the organization is very much in the clear. Though, if anyone would prefer we get an un-involved admin to formally close the RfC and issue a finding before proceeding, that certainly wouldn't hurt. Snow (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I said I wasn't sure what scope for this article was best, which is why the changes stayed. But yes consensus is clear enough now. Yes the lead is a bit dictionary-like. OK, that layout looks good. Happy to help out a bit here. Disagree however on the point that there is enough training info to warrant a dedicated article. It could probably be trimmed further and fit into a section on this article. Per LT's comment somewhere above, details about the training tend to be discussed on the same page as the main article for that field. Lesion (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, allow me to propose an adjustment to the above outline, which I will detail in a new section bellow, as this thread has gotten to be quite long. Snow (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Red XN Oppose an article narrowly dedicated to medical pathology. The wider scope is better. IP said Good luck trying to be all-encompassing with that! - see the Wikipedia treatment of other words which have multiple or complex meanings (for example A). Ignoring the multiple meanings is not the way to go. Using IPs expertise in the field of medical pathology to make a really good article or section which is specifically about medical pathology, may well be the way to go. But don't pretend the other meanings don't exist. Even if you think they are less important - and even if you're right about that - they do exist. (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested outline refinement[edit]

  • History
  • General medical and research pathology (with short body of text of it's own for contextualization)
    • Anatomical pathology
      • Surgical pathology
      • Medical training and accreditation
    • Clinical pathology
      • Medical training and accreditation
    • Cytopathology
    • Histopathology
    • Molecular pathology
    • Forensic pathology
  • Systems-specific fields
    • Dermatopathology
    • Hematopathology
    • Renal pathology
    • Neuropathology
    • Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (should at least contain reference to, or even a subsection for, speech pathology)
    • And any other specialties applicable
  • Psychopathology
  • Non-human pathology
    • Veterinary pathology
    • Phytopathology
  • See also
  • References

Not only will it situate like content together, it will hopefully have the benefit of compromise in ascertaining that the medical specialty-specific information is highlighted and presented in sufficient detail in the context of a somewhat codified sub-discusion of those fields. Note also that the cytopathology and histopathology sections (as well as discussion of similar topics in diagnostic and research such as hematophatology and chemopathology) could just as easily be discussed within the contexts of the sections on general, anatomical and clinical pathology. Snow (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

With regards training, propose moving all content about training to 1 subsection. Also, in my part many parts of the world, "speech pathologists" are called Speech and language therapists (SALT) and are clinicians not pathologists in the normal sense of the word. I know a bit about oral and maxillofacial pathology, and I would not consider speech and language therapy a part of that discipline. It is a clinically-based specialty which in my experience oral and maxillofacial pathologists have almost nothing to do with. Lesion (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's thinking too much about professional divisions that got us into this matter, remember! I'll grant you that the shared territory is limited with regard to oral pathology, but as to maxillofacial and speech pathology, there are plenty of shared conditions, or shared etiologies of separate conditions (especially in the vein of mechanical/neuromuscular disorders). Consider a swallowing disorder for example -- they are sometimes treated by speech pathologists, sometimes gastroenterologists, and sometimes otolaryngologists (and sometimes a combination thereof), but this is an underlying pathology of interest to each of their fields. But that caveat made, I don't totally disagree with you on broader point -- in practice, they have very different focuses. I just doubt that a full section on speech pathology is warranted here and have to imagine there is a way to work a wikilink to the speech pathology article into oral/maxillofacial section, even if it does end up being nothing more than a statement making the distinction between the two fields and noting that speech pathology is its own domain of inquiry, despite involving the same anatomical areas and some limited medical cross-over in terms of etiology. Snow (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Especially when professional divisions are subject to a great deal of geographic variation... Yes OK agree that is the closest section if one wanted to include a wikilink to that page. I also just noted the absence of "Head and neck pathology", which I understand to be a mixture of ENT, oral and maxillofacial pathology and perhaps some endocrine stuff. Again might be better to just mention that within the oral and maxillofacial part rather than have a dedicated section... Lesion (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
That sounds about right to me as well. Head and neck/ENT pathology is not exactly a defined field per say, though of course, a good deal of the work of ENT and GI specialties is diagnostically driven. Part of the reason that there aren't more anatomically-defined subfields to detail here is that those regions either A) are not common and well-recognized disciplines in the way of say, renal pathology, or B) they are so recognized, but have no article to date, and so will have to wait until someone actually generates enough content to be worth the creation of a summary section here. Until then, there are just going to be cases like this where something has to be placed with its "best fit", or left out entirely, depending on the subject in question. Snow (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Significant revision of article[edit]

Well, I finally took some time to rework the page, since no one else seemed to want the job, to bring it back into consistency with guidelines for broad-concept articles as per discussion above, amongst numerous other content additions and adjustments. The article now has a broader scope and many of the sections that were already in recent versions have been enhanced. I think it reads and looks better as a result and serves as good hub for all concepts related to the central concept of pathology, but the party who was advocating for continued focus on medical practice and training pathways will hopefully be pleased to note that a huge amount of information has been added in this vein as well, and this concept remains the dominant area explored. Was a bit of a sitting to hammer this one out, but I'm pleased with the results, though I still need to pull some refs out of other articles to make sure all sections are appropriately sourced. Here's the side-by-side, for those interested. Snow (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that your revisions are acceptable. I am, however, wondering why surgical pathology and histopathology have been separated out into their own sections when in actuality histopathology is a component of all surgical pathology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that mistake; that clearly belongs in the anatomical section, as with the other fields integrated with surgical pathology, but not necessarily defined by that association alone. I have toyed with the notion of moving a number of sections to serve as sub-subsections to surgical pathology, but the present structure is cleanest and I believe the associations between the fields are made clear. Snow talk 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How the words senses are addressed[edit]

[Moved here from my talk page —Q.s.]

Hello, Quercos. I can see that your efforts on the above-mentioned page are good-faith, but the changes you keep making to the lead are very much in conflict with consensus (reached, as I mentioned in my most recent edit summary, after significant discussion) that all of the different meanings which concern both medecine and ailment should be discussed and differentiated between prominently in the article. As it is, the relevance and usage of the term as shorthand for referencing the specific morphology and progression of a disease and similar meanings has already been extremely minimized to give prominence to medical professions and methodologies, but your changes basically excise the other distinctions in their entirety, and this is very much the opposite of what your fellow editors ultimately decided was called for in this article. I'd ask you to please not make this alteration in conflict with this consensus again; if you wish to open the issue to discussion on the talk page, that's one thing, and I will certainly engage, but the onus is not (as you suggested in your own edit summary) upon me to start that conversation when I am already operating from a pre-established consensus; rather it is upon you to make an argument for your position and why we should reverse or alter our previous collective decision. Insisting on reintroducing that change without first developing that consensus is not the way to go. Snow talk 19:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Snow Rise. Glad to work in good faith. Clearly, the crux of the matter for you is that you feel that the following chunk of text needs to be kept: ["Used as a common noun, "a pathology" (plural - "pathologies" or "pathoses") can also refer to the predicted or actual progression of particular diseases (as in the statement "the many different forms of cancer have diverse pathologies") and the prefix "path-" is sometimes used to indicate a state of disease in cases of both physical ailment (as in cardiomyopathy) and psychological conditions (such as psychopathy)"]. OK, I can accept keeping that chunk, with a few corrections of obvious errors, such as that (1) the "common noun" clause sets up a contrast that isn't there (because the others senses are not proper-noun senses either); (2) the word pathoses is not a plural form of pathology—it is the plural of pathosis and a synonym of pathologies; and (3) the word "prefix" is used but the examples given are showing the use of the suffix form. I'll just make those smaller corrections while keeping the overall chunk of text. That said, I intend also to keep a version of my sentence in the article somewhere ("The word pathology ... has ... a sense in which it is simply a synonym of disease or pathosis (whether physical or mental). The persistence of this usage despite attempted proscription is covered elsewhere."). I can find an appropriate spot for it to live in—either the bottom of the lede or in a section below. It's not my intent to try to force a version on you that takes away something that you consider vital. But one thing I am aiming to do is to have clear critical thinking in how the phrasing is done. This includes considering whether a reader wades through the whole lede and comes to the end still not simply understanding that one of the senses of the word pathology is synonymous with pathosis or disease (regardless of whether some usage commentators want people to avoid using that sense). Quercus solaris (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)