Talk:Fascia

message: Are fascia really made up mostly of collagen, or do they contain fluorescein-filled sinuses with reticular patterns? Petros C. Benias, Rebecca G. Wells et al. describe "dynamically compressible and distensible sinuses through which interstitial fluid flows around the body" in [Nature Scientific Reports volume 8, 2018|https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6]. They observed the sinuses in "fascial planes of the musculoskeletal system and adipose tissue." among many other places. Can a volunteer please mention this development in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrecognized Interstitium 

message: I got started by rewriting the first paragraph, adding a reference section and adding articles to the regional categories.  I hope to model this article after the one written on "muscles", including sections like: Anatomy, Physiology, Interactions with other systems of the body, Role in health and disease, and Therapeutic interventions. I'm brand new here and need feedback and help on this article.  Anyone else care about fascia?? Massagenj 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascia article revisions underway 

message: There may be a couple of mistakes in the explanation of how to pronounce "fascia". The article says that the "a" should be pronounced like the [second] "a" in "Natasha", which is called here a "long-a". 
First of all, "Natasha" is not pronounced the same way by native English speakers across all regions or countries. Americans, for example, will likely agree that the second "a" in "Natasha" and the "a" in "father" rhyme, while many native speakers in the UK will probably say the sounds are different.
Secondly, it can probably be argued quite well that the term "long-a" generally refers to the "a" in "cake" or "wait" rather than the first vowel sound in "father".
The beginning of the article deals with pronunciation in the best way possible, by using an international phonetic script. The note on "Natasha" is confusing for a global audience and should be deleted.
-unsigned comment
Done. JohnJohn 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "fascia" 

message: I've changed this to four, in order to include aponeuroses, but even so I'm not sure if it's true or if it even makes any sense-- especially since tendons, ligaments, and aponeuroses can all be continuous with deep fascia, and even more so because I'm sure there is some visceral dense connective tissue somewhere in the body that wouldn't fit this categorization. Kajerm 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Types of Dense Connective Tissue? 

message: against pathogenic agents and infections (which is redundant, BTW).  The dermis, otherwise known as "skin" is the first line of defense as regarded by western empirical medicine. Furthermore, the fascia acts in conjunction with the vascular system to enable tissue repair.
Solace098 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascia is not the first line of defense... 

message: someone added the line "this is not correct" to the end of the "Three layers of the fascia" section. I took the liberty of removing this line as it was clearly an attempt of vandalism. Please make sure wikipedia's vandalism bot doesn't go back and undo my change as it has done this several times in the past when I attempted to fix vandalism. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.101.38 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for helping fight vandalism. Registering or signing in would lower the probability of having your edits reverted (whether by a bot or an editor). – voidxor (talk | contrib) 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaned vandalism 

message: Silver skin redirects here, but there's no discussion of it. There is some culinary relevance to the matter, but this article solely discusses human anatomy. That needs to be fixed. --Kevin W. 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver skin 

message: I just got through reading and skimming the Article Extracellular matrix and I thought this sounds like Fascia. So I came back to this Article.
I have seen only one published research paper purporting to have proven the existence of the underlying bodily system called fascia.  This is the system that Massage Therapists like to release.  This Article (fortunately) has little to say on this system.
Yet the diagnosis Plantar Fasciitis (Wikipedia spelling) is a very common one. And that Article has an extremely large *fanclub*.
I have nothing to contribute (as usual); I would suggest that if there are really a number of important fascia structures in the mammalian body-- perhaps each should be treated individually at this point.  Seems this Article mentions only 3 structures. TheLordSayeth (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathise. I also had to do some re-reading and was left with reservations. That such tissue exists is certain; ask any butcher, let alone dissectionist. The description and discussion in the article need a lot of work. It is not clear for one thing whether there is an element of spam or at least of POV to the article; there certainly seems to be some partisan text on such subjects on the WWW, and some of the article's passages are quite evocative of that material. It would be nice if some literate professional human physiologist or histologist could weigh in and do some cleaning up.  JonRichfield (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand this Article. 

message: Article myofascia is very short, and from what I understand, myofascia (muscle fascia) is a type of fascia and is inside the scope of this article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! HCA (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Support the merger proposal.  Article is very short, and myofascia is all a part of the overall topic of fascia in biology.  N2e (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This article, split from Fascia, has not significantly expanded in the last 5 years. Instead, the series of "fascia" articles confusingly duplicate information, which makes it hard to understand and hard for readers to navigate. Merging the information into a single article reduces duplication, and aids the reader by providing the context of other types of fascia. Information can be merged into a subsection of the article and, if needed in the future, could be re-expanded as a separate article. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Superficial fascia]] 

message: As above. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Visceral fascia]] 

message: As above -- can easily be represented in a 'Function' section Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Deep fascia]] 

message: As someone with a specialist knowledge in this field as a connective tissue dissection specialist, I am happy to add and contribute.  There is some limited evidence in terms of fascial properties which probably won't pass muster.  I am slightly nervous of treading on the toes of the clique on Wikipedia and inadvertently expressing POVs.  The current terminology is almost certainly insufficient to describe the fascial layers accurately or adequately.  Certainly the three layers isn't accurate as the fascia is a continuous network.   The statement in the article that it is regular and runs parallel to the line of strain is also totally incorrect and illogical.  If it ran parallel to line of strain, it would fall apart on tensional input.  The point about it is that it many  places, it is highly irregular, such as the thoracolumbar fascia. Here it has many directions, many layers and follows no one directional line of strain.  Anyway perhaps someone could advise me where to go next.  I have no intention of editing the article, but as it stands it is an incredibly poor representation of the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrakardabra (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, . Most inaccuracies result not because of a clique of editors but because of incremental edits over time that change the meaning, or because a lot of text was derived from Gray's Anatomy 1918, which is not optimal. The only way changes are made on Wikipedia is through volunteers. I invite you to make those changes, or at least to propose changes here and I'll make them on your behalf. Feel free to explore the topic further and point out further inaccuracies, too. If you need any help please contact me by leaving a message on my talk page or use this to contact me: . Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be aware, , that you must support any suggested edits with references to scientific peer-reviewed journals only. HCA (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for change

message: , , and  redirect here, although it's not apparent why because there's no boldface mention of those terms per MOS:BOLD. Would somebody with more medical knowledge than myself please work these terms into the article and boldface them at their first instance? – voidxor (talk | contrib) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myofascia and Myofascial 

message: Urdu 37.111.128.129 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facia