|Neoplasm has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Neoplasm.
|WikiProject Medicine / Hematology-oncology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Merge with Tumor?
- 2 What exactly is growth?
- 3 proposed merger of Neoplastic cells to Neoplasm
- 4 Article voluntarily kept short
- 5 Move of Talk:Neoplasia to Talk:Neoplasm requested
- 6 Article voluntarily kept short -- again
- 7 Tumor = Neoplasm ≠ Tumor?
- 8 Definition of Benign
- 9 Moles don't ever transform into cancer?
- 10 Misplaced?
I think "neoplasia" and "tumor" should remain distinct. Lay people wouldn't gain anything from the inclusion of "neoplasia" in a discussion of tumors. And, anyone looking up "neoplasia" would be understand it to be scientific jargon, but still get the meaning. --(anon comment by 126.96.36.199)
I am also against a merge. If this article was titled "neoplasm" (a synonym for tumor) a merge would make sense. However, it is possible for neoplasia not to form a discrete mass (aka tumor). For example, I believe some instances of aggressive bone cancers (osteosarcoma) can cause severe lytic changes in bone tissue rather than discrete tumors. There must be other examples as well. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree. It is not necessarry to confuse neoplasia with tumour.... even though the two terms are extremely similar. As suggested above tumours are generally associated, by the lay, with malignancies. Although both neoplasias and tumours may either develop to become carcinogenig or remain benign. The destinction between the two would also be more beneficial to searches and reading.
There should be no merger, some people will then at
- The two words are NOT "extremely similar", they are quite different. See intro to cancer for a (very short) discussion.
- Did you know there a many neoplasms that do not form tumors? e.g. most leukemias and myeloma. Did you know that most tumors (i.e. swelling) are not neoplasms, but rather inflammation around an infection? Hey, why not merge sneezing with common cold? Emmanuelm 20:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Without merging the two pages, I shortened this article, directing the reader to the Cancer page. Emmanuelm 16:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seeing how the cancer article is a magnet for vandals, I wonder whether the whole discussion should be moved to this Neoplasm article instead. Nice and quiet in here. Emmanuelm 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
that's a very good idea.i think it would be appropriate to create the pages benign neoplasm and malignant neoplasm,and merge the page cancer into malignant neoplasm.anyone agree?Immunize (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is growth?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on 'growth' in the context of Willis' description of neoplastic disease. Must neoplastic growth be driven by an increased rate of cell division? Is it good enough for the cells to accumulate through an extended (and dysregulated) lifespan? WhatamIdoing 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting question. Since Willis' quote predates the discovery of apoptosis by ~20 years, I'm not sure it is an idea that he would have considered. However, since it is phrased with reference to "tissue", rather than individual cells, I'd say that the criterion "growth of which exceeds and is uncoordinated with that of the normal tissues" could be fulfilled by any process which causes the tissue to expand, either through more rapid cell division, delayed apoptosis, or both. The advantages of a vague definition. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
proposed merger of Neoplastic cells to Neoplasm
Article voluntarily kept short
I shortened the article to avoid counter-productive duplications with the cancer article and to direct (without re-directing) the readers. To all those who contributed truly interesting stuff to this article, stop hanging in this boring joint, please bring your ideas and join the party! Emmanuelm (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Emmanuelm, I have reverted your high-handed changes. Please talk about major changes before you make them. A single editor shouldn't be unilaterally declaring that an article is "voluntarily being kept short," especially when the article in question was barely longer than a stub to begin with. People who want to learn about noncancerous neoplasia deserve a place a Wikipedia, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The place in WP for non-cancerous neoplasia is Benign tumor.
- This Neoplasia article is not a stub, it is a soft redirect. The real story is told in the huge and vibrant Cancer article. Please shorten the article, and come join the party!
- By the way, I did the same thing to the Tumor article. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- And your proposed classification for myeloproliferative diseases, which are neoplastic but neither tumors nor cancers is exactly what again? I don't think that these words would exist in modern medicine if they weren't necessary on occasion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re. Neoplasia and Tumor in the WikiProject Medicine talk page.
- Hello WhatamIdoing & Una Smith, I understand your concern. In fact, in Dec 2005, I was the one arguing your point in the talk page of Cancer. Jellytussle and others convinced me that Cancer is the place to be. Remember that Wikipedia is written for patients, not doctors. I find that WP tends to grow in a completely disorganized fashion and, therefore, tends to become a maze where non-experts get lost.
- Please reconsider or, at the very least, move this discussion in the Cancer talk page. You'll be surprised to see how active it is. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted in the Neoplasia and Tumor talk pages)
- Oh, and read what I wrote a year ago at the top of this very page, on the same subject. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I reintroduced the soft redirect sentence without editing the text. As it stands, the article is unacceptably short and incomplete. You have two choices: either accept the soft redirect or start doing serious work on the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I have at least three choices, and I picked number three: To remove the unnecessary soft-redirect and ask why it's so critical to you that cancer be linked twice in this article and that people be discouraged from expanding this article.
- I object to primarily your "intentionally kept short" language. First of all, it's not appropriate for one editor to declare something like that, because it implies that there is a good consensus on this, when it's merely your personal decision. Furthermore, your sentence will be interpreted by potential editors as "Don't waste your time here. Your efforts are not wanted, and may be reverted." I do not think that it is possible to include your preferred language without creating an unwelcoming environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you think the article desperately needs lengthening and completing, then why don't you do that yourself? If you don't want to do that, then why don't you at least list the things you'd like to see done? Furthermore, if you really want it expanded, then why do you keep adding a please nobody expand this article note?
- This article is not very high on my priority list. I don't pretend that it's a good article, but it's not high on my priority list. In fact, it's likely that the only thing I will do for this article during the next month or two is to keep you from actively discouraging editors from working on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand me. Let me repeat my points one more time:
- As it stands, this article is too short; status quo is unacceptable.
- I do not think this article should be lengthened; this would merely be a repetition of the Cancer article. I think the article should be shortened.
- If you (or someone else) want to expand it, here is a list of the things I'd like to see done : the table of contents of Cancer.
- Please do not take this personally. Your contributions to Wikipedia are very valuable. Sincerely, Emmanuelm (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand me. Let me repeat my points one more time:
- I don't intend this to be a personal attack, but is English your primary language? You've asserted in your list of complaints that the "article is too short," and that you also "think the article should be shortened." Did you perhaps means that the article is very short, instead of too short?
- The article is about a dozen sentences right now. If 12 is "too short," then all improvements need to involve >12 sentences. If, on the other hand, your preferred solution is to make the article shorter, then all solutions need to involve <12 sentences. The set of edits which produce an article which is simultaneously greater than and less than 12 sentences is the null set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Move of Talk:Neoplasia to Talk:Neoplasm requested
Article voluntarily kept short -- again
For the record, 188.8.131.52 is not me and I had no advance knowledge of today's edits. I do, however, completely agree with them, as per the earlier discussion on the same subject. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Tumor = Neoplasm ≠ Tumor?
In modern use, all tumors are neoplastic, but surely the terms are not actually interchangeable. Please check my attempt to clarify this for accuracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course the two terms are not interchangeable. This is why we have two separate articles. What matters is that the lay reader clearly understands that currently tumor = neoplasm. Google "tumor" and see for yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Definition of Benign
I've changed the definition of benign neoplasms slightly, to say that they usually do not transform into cancer, since they do have the potential, but it is not definite or expected as in the case of pre-cancerous. Hope this's okay. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, if it's actually benign, then it never transforms (by definition). The situation you're talking about is misdiagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Moles don't ever transform into cancer?
In the article it states that moles never transform into cancer. This seems to be completely untrue, considering that I know (and the government campaigns about) many people who have had moles that turned into melanomas from UV radiation. Considering this, I am unsure what is meant by the sentence. En-AU Speaker (T) (C) (E) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Bernstein0275 added a huge amount of sourced material in April about Malignant neoplasms, and I'm wondering whether that really ought to be here, rather than over at Malignant neoplasms ("Cancer") with just a brief summary here. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. However, I note that the Cancer article is mostly aimed at the disease, with sections on symptoms, causes, diagnosis, prevention, screening, management, prognosis, etc. Thus a large section on how cancers are formed in their early stages, emphasized in the Neoplasm section Malignant neoplasm may not be as appropriate there. Bernstein0275 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)