Talk:Tumor

Recent edits are confusing, will be reverted soon
In their recent edits, Una Smith and Casliber confuse the "tumor as neoplasm" and "tumor as swelling" concept, thus confusing the casual reader. Neoplasms are discussed in Neoplasm, Cancer, Carcinoma in-situ and Benign neoplasm. Swelling has its own article. Thus, Tumor is redundant and should be kept short. This was one the main reason for my rewrite of the article a few months ago. In a few days, I will revert to my last (May 20th) version. Please discuss here. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Emanuel, the use of tumor as swelling is archaic - now in common parlance it means neoplasm when used by doctors. Hence the article needs to reflect that (i.e. current not archaic use). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it means solid neoplasm, ie neoplasm other than a leukemia. --Una Smith (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Emanuel, we do agree that the historical usage and etymological development of the word needs to be included but the fact remains this is how the word is used now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase objections. Tumor originally meant swelling, now usually means neoplasm. This was what the article said on May 20th (my last edit). I kept it short, redirecting the readers to Swelling, Benign neoplasm and Cancer. Instead of helping, your recent additions make the article confusing. Again, I plan to revert them. Please explain why they should stay. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That 20th of may version is inadvertently misleading. The non-neoplastic causes are listed straight under the first cause giving an impression as to current thinking. The version also leads with historical before current usage. Medicine MOS places historical usage at the bottom of the article text. Also, as an article grows, keeping the etymology in a section rather than all of it in the lead means it doesn't clutter up some simple introductory statements. I honestly prefer this version as more illustrative of current usage, and so do other medical folk on wikiprject medicine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead picture of a swollen ankle is inappropriate and confusing. Since this article is about tumours, a discussion of differential diagnoses is appropriate (which includes swellings) but having one as the lead picture, along with a caption calling it a tumor is very misleading. Colin°Talk 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry, overlooked that completely.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "cancer by definition is malignant" to me appears incorrect. Cancer can be malignant or begign - thats how cancers are "dangerous" (per se) or "not dangerous".
 * Hello anonymous, you are confusing "cancer" with "tumor". Cancer is always malignant. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

non-neoplastic tumor
The Etymology section includes the phrase "non-neoplastic tumor", which makes no sense. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Una, change it. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/NEOHTML/NEOPL008.html - "a "tumor" can mean any mass effect, whether it is inflammatory, hemodynamic, or neoplastic in origin" --Arcadian (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcadian, I think the Etymology section explains it very well : a century ago, tumor meant swelling, now it means neoplasm. Since its meaning is evolving, I am not surprised to find sources contradicting each other, but the role of Wikipedia is to clarify, not confuse. I think this article does a good job as it is and does not need a lengthy discussion on this.
 * Another word with an evolving meaning is Gay. You may want to see how they worded it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The role of Wikipedia is to provide verifiability, not truth. Removing references to reliable sources takes us farther from that goal. --Arcadian (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent confusing additions -- please justify
The article was shortened last year to redirect readers to the immensely more complete and academic Cancer article. Since, it has been enlarged, creating confusion instead of clarity. Please justify here before I revert to the November 4, 2008 version by Zigger. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After waiting 17 days without an answer, I reverted the article to its original (Nov 4th) version. Please discuss here. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

changes march 2010
I've made some changes, which I hope don't confuse the matter, the reason why I want to do this was that I would be leaning on this article and its definition for the brain tumor lemma always prepared to discuss matters further --DerekvG (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitosis
On the subject of Mitosis : Emmanuelm changed my addition about Mitosis. I know I'm not medically graduated so my knowledge is that of a well informed layman. I understand you remark an your correction : Mitosis is characteristic of any cell (also the healthy cell), but AFAIK Uncontrolled Mitosis is an essential characterisitic of a neoplasm (a tumor in the current -restricted- sense of the word). Perhaps my addition needs rephrasing but as such i would like to keep a reference to Mitosis in that sentence, because it explains what a tumor is all about. --DerekvG (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tumours are caused by uncontrolled proliferation -- that's what's written in the article. Proliferation, controlled (normal) or uncontrolled (neoplastic) both go through a step called mitosis. But proliferation is much more than mitosis; see cell cycle.
 * As it stands now, the text is both shorter and more correct than what you wrote. But don't let this discourage you. I am older and more educated than you, but not smarter. One day, you'll know more than me. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Four paragraph removed
I removed four paragraphs that contained text belonging to other articles. Please keep this article short while re-directing the reader to cancer. Sorry for deleting your text. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly think you overdid it. Now the article requires the reader to have previous knowledge from cancer and inflammation while I think tumor should be an entry-point article where the layman reader shoudl find a all basic info to decide where to go : deeper in detail to certain tumors or mor general to cancer, the section on cell-lines was i gather too detailed. --DerekvG (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Tumor" is actually more general than "Cancer"; tumors can be malignant or benign, whereas cancer is always malignant. As for your other comments, please edit the text to your liking. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Text and images removed
Again, I removed text and an image to keep the article lean, redirecting the reader to Cancer. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)