Jump to content

Talk:Pathology/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Molecular pathologic epidemiology is in the wrong place

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 174.88.12.143 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

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): [1] 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 [2], 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)

Comments

  • 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 174.88.12.143 (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 70.50.129.198 (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 70.50.129.198 (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:
Lead
  • 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)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 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. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested outline refinement

Lead
  • 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

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 70.50.129.198 (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

[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)

Is Pathology actually a field?

I can see that General Pathology is a discipline that medics train in and practice. But pathology itself? It’s more of a concept to me than a field. It pervades the whole of medical science, which is to say that it’s not a field in itself. Does anyone actually have a source saying that pathology is a field?

Willbown (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but you'd be hard-pressed to convince the pathologists of that. They're quite content at their intellectual pseudo-onanism; its all they've got, really. They're a field without a true identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.97.122 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Evaluation

This is a very well formatted article. It is from an unbiased point of view and contains verifiable research from many different sources with proper citations. The article starts off with a very informative introduction that gives a great deal of insight into the core of the subject. I like how the article gives some back ground on the subject before jumping into the core of it. I further like how after that, it breaks it up into the different types of pathology and goes into depth on each of the subjects.

The article does not leave a ton of room for improvement but I feel that some of the formatting could have been a little different. There has been a great deal of discussion on the page about deleting and adding new sections. Editors have proposed adding new sections, especially on different fields of pathology that are not included. One thing to change is to distinguish between pathology in a medical sense and the actual study of pathology for research reasons, not necessarily medicine based. Willclisham (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Lead Section

Pathology Lead Section Pathology is the study of diseases and their effects on the body. Pathology itself is a very broad field that can be broken down into the sub categories of Anatomical and Clinical Pathology. Anatomical Pathology focuses on the examination of tissues for the diagnosis of diseases while Clinical focuses more on utilizing laboratory analyses for the diagnosis. The two more common forms of clinical pathology include immunopathology, which is the study of an organism’s immune response to a certain disease , and radiation pathology, which is the study of radiation’s effect on organisms and the diseases/problems that can arise . Another sub category of pathology is Molecular Pathology, which is the study and diagnosis of diseases based on the inspection of molecules in tissues and organs. It is primarily used to detect cancers such as melanoma, brainstem glioma, brain tumors as well as many other types of cancer and infectious diseases . Pathology is a huge part of the medical field that will forever be growing, due to the emergence of new disease every year. Because of these new diseases, pathology will continue to advance. In the future, to combat these new diseases, there will be improvements in disease detection, treatment and classification. Further Additions Once I create the sub categories for immune and radiation pathology, I am going to go further into depth with them and explain where they are used in the real world and what tactics/techniques are used in each area. I am using the following link to help me with that, as well as a journal on radiation pathology: http://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1710-1492-7-S1-S1 For the Molecular Pathology section, I plan to add a sub category on what types of diseases it is used to detect and what kind of techniques and technology are used for certain diseases. Lastly, I want to add a section that goes into the future of pathology and how important of a field it is. I am going to include new and refurbished techniques that will be used in the future to combat the diseases. Willclisham (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Willclisham

Peer Review

The immunopathology section does a good job defining the multiple faults in the immune system and explaining what happens when the body comes in contact with different diseases. Radiation Pathology is clearly defined and is a useful addition to the current article. Useful information is added to Molecular Pathology section and was something new I learned about when reading this article. I would not suggest any changes to the article. I think you do a good job maintaining a neutral point of view, including verifiable information and sources. --Devours2 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pathology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Article for English 1101-Mackenzie Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrobinson99 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC) The entire article is based on the study, history, and the types of Pathology that there are. Within it, I am focusing on mainly the types of Pathology that are discussed. I decided to focus on this section of the entire page because, as I study Pathology, I find interesting the different types and how they relate or do not relate. The information given in this Wikipedia page seems to be, for the most part, very accurate. It is accurate in how it talks about Anatomical Pathology deals with the study of diseases within tissues of the body; Neuropathology deals with the study of diseases within the nervous system tissue; Clinical Pathology deals with diseases with relation to bodily fluids, such as blood; and how Surgical Pathology is the hands-on surgery end of Pathology studies. It also talks about other types and branches of Pathology and all of its information seems to be correct. While medicine in general is written in a somewhat confusing language, the language of this article is generally easy to understand for most. It is hard to simplify medical terminology; however, this article seems to do a good job in simplifying terms and phrases. This article did include citations for some of the sections, such as the history; however, many of the sections are left without citations. The format of the page is very well set up and easy to follow. It starts with the history, goes on to the generals of the subject, and then it focuses on the specific types of the study of Pathology. I found the format to be very helpful in understanding the subject as a whole and it helps ease the reader into the more difficult parts of the subject. This article did not give me many ideas for my own article that I helped edit as the subject of my article was very history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrobinson99 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pathology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pathology/Archive_3&oldid=1185085516"