|This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I have a interesting question. Who first discovered the actual colon body part and what time period what it? Also, How and why did this person decide to call it a colon? My friend and I are wondering if the punctuation name for "colon" came first than the name for the body part. We were wondering how the discovery happened, who made the first "discovery", and why did they decide to call it a "colon." Aslo, is there any correlation between the body part and the punctuation? If there is any information out there please let me know. Thanks! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Chris Califf 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) email@example.com
- According to this and this, both terms derive from Greek words that are rendered identically as "kolon" when transliterated into English, but are actually different words in Greek (κολον and κωλον). Per Romanization of Greek, "ω" used to be transliterated as "o". --Arcadian (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Whats the effect on lifestyle and on digestive function of removing the colon?
I can't seem to find it!
This page seems pretty sparse for an artical about a major Organ. I think that this artical would benefit from adding extra sections, specifically on the different parts of the colon, and what (if anything besides location) differentiates between the ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid sections of the colon. --Whiteknight 02:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be attempting to be generic in describing the colon in different mammals and organisms, but then has some very specifics like listing the length... that should be clarified
"Whats the effect on lifestyle and on digestive function of removing the colon?"
I am advising an end to the edit war here with the following recommendations. Autisitic colitis may be an inflammatory state the may be different in Autistic patients from colitis seen in non-autistic patients. I think not, but that is another matter. In relation to this little edit skirmish the issue should be moved to colitis. The issue is wheter there is a special type of colitis that needs differentiation. I did a rewrite of the colitis article to bring it into mainstream thinking of organization. Putting the link there makes a lot more sense. The little tail on the colitis link was left in this article to get people to read this little bit. That little tail ought to be amputated. S Holland, M.D., Kd4ttc 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of the see also subheading, so I moved autistic enterocolitis into the main body of the text. Andrew73 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Kd4ttc 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The colon segments should not be separate. After all, they aren't in real life ;-) I am moving them all here with redirects. Kd4ttc 23:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, did a bunch of cuts. someone some time ago put identical content in multiple places instead of doing redirects. Now this is maintainable. Have fun. Steve Kd4ttc 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I dropped the linking brackets around sigmoid colon. The subsegments do not have special functions or medical considerations except for the rectum where specific problems of neoplasia are unique and ano-rectal motility is important. I am thus trying to keep the colon together. Kd4ttc 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Is constipation a "disease" or a "disorder?" I moved it to disorder. Andrew73 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think trying to imply a distinction will cause a general reader to imply some importance to the distinction. I just merged the groups. Actually it is a sign and symptom and a diagnosis, so it is hard to ponder. Kd4ttc 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. Andrew73 23:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Preparing to merge... leaving this here to keep from losing anything.
It is about 1.5 meters long, being one-fifth of the whole extent of the intestinal canal.
It differs from the small intestine in its greater caliber, its more fixed position, its sacculated form, and in possessing certain appendages to its external coat, the appendices epiploicæ.
Further, its longitudinal muscular fibers do not form a continuous layer around the gut, but are arranged in three longitudinal bands or tæniæ.
The large intestine, in its course, describes an arch which surrounds the convolutions of the small intestine.
It commences in the right iliac region, in a dilated part, the cecum.
It ascends through the right lumbar and hypochondriac regions to the under surface of the liver; it here takes a bend, the right colic flexure, to the left and passes transversely across the abdomen on the confines of the epigastric and umbilical regions, to the left hypochondriac region; it then bends again, the left colic flexure, and descends through the left lumbar and iliac regions to the pelvis, where it forms a bend called the sigmoid flexure; from this it is continued along the posterior wall of the pelvis to the anus.
- (unsigned addition, by User:Triona, august 9 2006)
Why split up the colon?
- Message originally posted at User talk:Arcadian
A while ago I consolidated all the articles on colon subsections and redirected to colon. The intent was to put all the colon articles in one place. Why did you recreate the colon subsection sections? I am concerned that having all the sections separate will lead to the sections getting various editorial treatments and add to the work it takes to keep all the sections up to date. Steve Kd4ttc 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the rectum (your merge into rectum, my split out) or the cecum (your merge into rectum, my split out) I removed them from the colon article because they are not part of the colon. If you are referring my work at ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, or sigmoid colon: the different portions of the colon have different lymphatic drainage, relations, innervation, mesenteries, clinical correlations, arteries, and veins. If you are concerned about the work it takes to keep these pages up-to-date, you are under no obligation to contribute to them, though of course your assistance would be welcomed. --Arcadian 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I had done some work to consolidate the sections under colon, with each section pointing to colon. While the arteries and veins are named differently, they are not of significant funtional difference. I agree that the rectum has special functions that the remainder of the colon has, so a special section on rectum is reasonable. However, as the physiology section gets expanded it is going to be duplicative to have that information in every section. Gray's Anatomy puts all the subsections of the colon in a single section. Why not go back to the everything in the colon approach? The anatomic comparisions can be more easily seen in a single article, and the common physiology would be more naturally presented. Steve Kd4ttc 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at this sentence:
The ______ is a storage tube for solid wastes.
If you didn't know that this was an article about the a body, would you be able to fill in the blank? Even with that knowledge, it's not obvious. It is good that the subject of the opening sentence is the subject of the article, but the opening sentence needs to help the reader immmediately understand what this is really about. I will try to improve this, but I am anatomically ignorant, and I would like someone more knowledgeable than I to improve on it. Unschool (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- A great improvement, thanks! -- Timberframe (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Paralytic (adynamic) ileus
The following appeared today from an IP editor under the heading "Function":
"Paralytic (adynamic) ileus.The cardinal sign of paralytic (adynamic) ileus is absent bowel sounds. In addition to abdominal distention, associated signs and symptoms include generalized discomfort and constipation or the passage of small, liquid stools. If paralytic ileus follows acute abdominal infection, the patient may also experience fever and abdominal pain."
It clearly doesn't belong under this heading and, if genuine (I'm not qualified to say) is only one of many conditions which may affect the colon. As such I guess it deserves a mention under "Pathology" - which it has been given - and an article in its own right. Can anyone confirm if it's genuine and relevant and suggest how best to incorporate it? -- Timberframe (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)