Talk:Palatability

Untitled

Why does this page redirect to 'Toxin'? It is not related to toxin in any way.

It is related - unpalatable substances are often toxic. But I think the link is too vague to warrant a redirect, I was only thinking of toxicity as the single factor determining palatability. The related pages palatable and unpalatable should also be deleted. Richard001 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is almost undecipherable

You know, I have a pretty good vocabulary and, while I'm far from an an expert, I can often figure out Latin and other words by context if nothing else. But I'm having trouble _following_ this article, which I chanced upon by "random" surfing (I believe that "random" surfing is only truly random to observers, or, perhaps, less so... if they can follow the entire surfing chain of sites. I ended up here for a reason, whatever it may be; there was a logical chain of subjects to investigate that brought me here, even if I, myself, am partially, or fully, unaware of them).

Be that as it may, my real point is that far too many Wikipedia pages have been written by authors that are either genuine experts in the field the article pertains to and, therefore, use the words and jargon of their profession easily, or by amateurs who wish to be perceived as experts and as a result use a profundity of words not easily recognizable -- or understood -- by the masses.

And isn't Wikipedia supposed, anyway, to be accessible to as many people as possible?

Using a lot of Latin isn't exactly the best way to do that. Not for me, and (I like to think, anyway) I'm a reasonably intelligent guy.

I taught myself to program on a Commodore 64, using nothing but the Commodore book of Commodore Basic Commands, when I was 20. Now I'm a Systems Administrator and write programs, and design databases, for a living. Maybe that doesn't qualify me as "reasonably intelligent" in your book, well... if education is a problem, then... you're right, I don't have that almighty degree. Instead, I went to college for 3 years at one place, another year at another, and another two years somewhere else... all "respected Universities" -- none of the latter of which would give me full credit for my "studies" at the others. Because if they did, I wouldn't have to put in the required "residency" time. Which is another way to say, they wouldn't have been able to milk enough money out of me. I've actually completed the _equivalent_ of a Computer Science degree, _especially_ considering my 18+ years of, you know, _actual_ experience... I just don't "qualify" for the, you know, actual sheepskin. But, to coin a phrase, "I ain't no dummy"... OK?

But this article, and many others, on Wikipedia is almost incomprehensible to me BECAUSE of the Latin and other "technical" words and language used.

Look... shouldn't there be a rule... along with all the other Wikipedia rules on posting that says, basically, "Articles should be comprehensible by the common reader"?

To be honest... I'm egoistic... I don't consider myself the "common reader". Call me arrogant (although my co-workers think I am actually too humble, and tell me so, often... that's a true story. Still -- hey, I like to think I'm fairly smart, I've made a career out of being smart... but, maybe, I ain't so smart after all). But... that means... if true (make you're own judgment) that this article is so far beyond the "common" reader as to be unintelligible.

And WHAT, exactly, is the point of THAT?

If true experts wrote this article... you're telling me you can't reduce it to it's more common terms, at least better than this? What are you writing, a professional paper or a a Wikipedia article? Shame on you -- you know what you're talking about and you're showing off, and nothing more; you've missed the point. This isn't a forum for a professional publication -- or for showing off -- this is a forum for _informing_ the general public. Take the extra time and effort and make it accessible to EVERYONE. If amateurs wrote this article, then shame on you, you're putting on airs by vocabulary and tricking people into thinking you're smarter than you are... and this article shouldn't be paid attention to. But... it's here... on Wikipedia... where, seemingly, _everyone_goes to for so-called facts.

Anyway... whether I am "smart" or not... I came here tonight looking for information. And this article was well-nigh incomprehensible to me, due to the language. And I had no wish, when starting, to investigate a dozen or more links to become more educated... it was _surfing_.

Just something to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.130.169 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

==

From an entirely different perspective, i agree, this article is almost INDECIPHERABLE. It fails to extract a comprehensible account from the deep recesses of professional jargon, to the point where its meaning is nowhere to be found by general readers. Here's a perfectly illustrative selection:

"The rewardfulness of consumption associated with palatability is dissociable from desire or incentive value which is the motivation to seek out a specific commodity.[3] Desire or incentive value is processed by opioid receptor-related processes in the basolateral amygdala.[3] Unlike the liking palatability for food, the incentive salience wanting is not downregulated by the physiological consequences of food consumption and may be largely independent of homoeostatic processes influencing food intake.[7]"

Jargon is useful because it instrumentalizes language to produce precision in professional circles. Inappropriate here. I'd forgotten that decades ago I had an editing job that consisted of rewriting medical articles into a more broadly comprehensible English. Someone oughta save this article by extracting it from its linguistic prison house. Actio (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)