This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Technical jargon
I noticed this article makes heavy use of the word "deafferent", which is an obscure and highly technical term that only appears in two articles on all of Wikipedia. The other being the article for Alex Pacheco, and aptly enough the exact section that uses the phrase is about this very case. Is there no better way of describing the procedures that took place without the use of a practically unused word in the English language? 109.78.54.211 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand my point, Clark. You can easily search for what the term means, you can do that for any such unknown word. My issue stems from the isolated use of such an obscure phrase to begin with. 109.78.54.211 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the article didn't explain what deafferentation is, we'd certainly be doing readers a disservice by using an obscure term to refer to something they most likely don't understand. However, it is defined and explained at the start of the background section. There are 34 instances in the article where the term (or a replacement for the term) must be used, so it would require a significant rewrite to get rid of the term in favor of repeatedly using a longer surrogate description that takes more words than just "deafferented" each time to say. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]