Talk:Skin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Skin color
Does anybody else find it problematic that all the pictures presented show white skin? Wouldn't it be more interesting to have pictures of various skin colors? Fokion 15:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Added section on and pictures of skin tones (I believe they're litteraly mug shots), it's not very good and possibly racist, but there's only so many hours in a day. WLU 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like more information on different categories of skin colors: olive, others.
[edit] Skin Diseases
Is there a list of skin diseases or something like that? listing things like athlete's foot, eczema, psoriasis, acne, skin cancer, impetigo... I just created Hidradenitis suppurativa and wanted to know if there's a place I should be listing it. --zandperl 19:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I just found it's on the dermatology page--is that really the best place for it? there's not much content other than that. --zandperl 19:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yess I just created it !! A place to add your fav skin diseases !!! Jay 14:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further more I removed the part 'Though generally described in terms of geographic or political groups, skin tones in practice bear only a weak correlation with either of these divisions.' No citation here and who ever describes skin colour as a qualifier for a political group aside from tiny fringe racist groups? Skin colour is obviously some what moderately correlated to geographic factors IMO.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.23.8 (talk • contribs).
I was the one who put it in. What I was trying to get at was that while originally skin tone was strongly linked to geographic areas and 'political groups' (political being a poor term, better would be something like racial, but that leans towards racism) or genetically and culturally homogeneous groups, nowadays the links between any sort of phyiscal place or cultural association are tenuous at best, and getting thinner. It's probably somewhere between common sense and original research, but a reference would be better. WLU 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Surface area
I choose to question the statement that the skin has the largest surface area of all the organs. The lungs, for instance, has an immense surface area, though I am not sure of the numbers. Thus, I raise the issue here. What I do know is that the lungs, if placed outside the confinement of the body, could reach a volume of 6 cubical meters, if all the folds were to be straightened. Please help to look into this. --TVPR 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm removing the statement about surface area until someone can back it up. The interor of the intestine, for instance, can reach a surface area of 300 square meters. Yes, really. And the intestine is one single organ. --TVPR 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is from Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Eighth Edition, Chapter 6, page 113. "If the skin of 150-pound person were spread out flat, it would cover approximately 20 square feet. Jordan Yang 18:02, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I found that also in MSN Encarta where it would spread out 20 square feet from a 150 pound male
[edit] Need for improvement
I hate to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a very weak article and needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I'm a Ph.D. biophysicist with experience but no special expertise regarding skin, so I'm not going to take on this one, other than my minor additions today. I looked here because I had added material on β-keratins to the article on feathers. There is some good material, but the writing and organization are not quite at a high school level. Sorry, but we have to keep improving the wiki project. Don't get discouraged; just keep working. Writing and organization will improve in proportion to practice.
If you're working on this, your heart and mind are in the right place. To put anatomy in perspective, just remember that if all the arteries, veins and capillaries of a man were laid out end to end, he would probably die.
David Shear 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- David, your involvement is appreciated. We desperately need experts to write our science and biology articles. You're the right man at the right place at the right time. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree: just as a person who has minimal anatomy experience, this article lacks accuracy. As well, it is very brief for such a complex involved topic. Dr. Payne 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggest add info on human skin permeability
Suggest adding info about how effective the skin barrier is and why. Skin is composed of a lipid layer in the stratum corneum, and an aqueous layer below the stratum corneum. Substances are usually either water soluble or fat soluble. The skin's lipid layer stops the water soluble substances, the aqueous layer stops fat soluble substances. Thus one skin layer or the other tends to stop most substances. There are dermal drug delivery systems, but it's actually quite difficult to get substances through the skin. Two permeability enhancers sometimes used are PLO (Pluronic Lecithin Organogel), and DMSO (Dimethyl Sulfoxide). More info: [1] [2] (large PDF) Joema 10:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sexual Nature
Shouldn't there be something in the article about the sexual nature of skin on humans as a secondary sexual characteristic? -Unsigned
yes i think that there should be, because teenagers of my age do not really undersatnd about the skin No, would just imply racism.
[edit] Texture
I came here hoping to find out a bit more about the texture of skin and what causes the ranges of Texture, I know about the colour but I was hoping to find out more about rough bumby skin compared to the more smoother textures and what causes these variations. Perhaps in a seperate article though I am sure it could fit in here as a section.
[edit] Lips
Shouldn't the lips be mentioned, I thought that was skin too. a special type of skin with no pores or something. Actually I came here to look for the English word for the thick skin that develops if alot of pressure is applied to the skin. Like guitarists have on their fingertips. But that's not mentioned in it either.(83.118.38.37 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
- Callus? --Nick Boalch ?!? 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subsections of Layers
I think that the "Layers" section of this article should have three subsections: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis. What are other's thoughts on this? --72.144.38.32 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Human centric
This article is very human-centric.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.195.148 (talk • contribs).
- (After moving section to bottom of page.) You are welcome to add to the article. We do ask that you provide references for any material you add, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] and Wikipedia:Citing sources. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Layers (continuation)
I read at the beginning of the article that the skin has 3 primary layers. Then they divide the epidermis and dermis into 8 more layers and state that the Hypodermis is "not part of the skin." ??? This doesn’t make sense. Didgepenguin
[edit] Ridiculous statement
"Skin is considered one of the most important parts of the body." By whom? Which parts of the body are not important?
Appendix. WLU
[edit] Variability in Skin Tone
Does anyone else find it very american centric in how it says african american. I believe that just people of african ancestry would be more sensitive to us who aren't american.Squall1991 09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being from Canada with the heavy US influence that that entials, I'm nervous uncertain about how to refer to black/african/african american people without being considered racist or offending someone, though I totally admit that my contributions on this regard have been very 'Americanized'. Is there an international standard? Also, it's important to be careful in that not all people living in Africa are black, I don't know how obvious it needs to be about referring to historical/anthropological classification and times. WLU 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- 'Sub-Saharan African' is one way to exclude the light-skinned peoples of northern Africa, but that still includes the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa, and has it's own history of misuse. 'Black' my be the most neutral term available, although it is not baggage-free either. -- Donald Albury 15:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] do not merge
epidermis is a cell in skin! --60.52.41.74 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) aka tearfate (lazy login)
epidermis is not a cell in skin, it is a layer of the integument (skin) consisting of many cells and many layers within itself. therefore, epidermis should be discussed in the skin page, instead of skin being discussed in the epidermis article. Whether this is what the person of who suggested the merge intended or not, skin should NOT be merged into the epidermis article, the epidermis should be merged into the skin. Dr. Payne 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Epidermis is a layer of the skin. This article would be far too long if all the content from epidermis were to merged into it. This article should cover all the areas briefly with more detail in epidermis, dermis etc. From reading the epidermis talk page the merger suggestion seems to come from the idea that this is too human-centric. I don't see how merging would help. Secretlondon 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoever thinks that the epidermis is a skin cell needs to review their textbooks. While they are not exactly the same thing (the epidermis is just a layer of the skin), they are obviously related. It would be important to mention that there is another related article, as Wiki tends to do. FrameLA 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] do merge
Epidermis is part of the skin, it should be put as a subdivision under sub-layers, as well as dermis and hypodermis.
[edit] Cutaneous folds
There needs to be an article on cutaneous folds. Gringo300 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
