Talk:Orthopedic impairment

Contradiction
About "...federal law defines an orthopedic impairment as, 'a severe orthopedic impairment...'."

How can something which isn't severe simply be severe? Because "We insist on that; we say it's so, and we have the authority"?

I can't say any more than "It's not right. Please fix it."

That comma is either pesky or necessitated, but I don't know which or why.

(Only if, like me, you have nothing better to do, should you carry on reading.)

This reads like the "chicken broth" that appears on a store shelf in a can that contains "chicken broth" among a list of ingredients, which I've actually seen, surprisingly. (There must be a reason they do that.) But if you could add, say, seawater, to the resulting chicken broth without making it something other than chicken broth, why, don't you see, you could just keep adding seawater forever, and still sell what comes out as chicken broth!

The phrases, "in the context of", "as applied to", "in the following terms" or "as follows", "one which", "under statute", might be useful here. The discussion should be preceded in brief (not precise or accurate) terms giving readers ignorant of the subject just the gist of what it's all about. Imprecise, but commonly understood synonyms may serve the purpose nicely, in a simple, straight-forward statement, so they can focus on and think about the meanings. Don't make them wonder, "Why did Wikipedia phrase it that way, instead of the normal way?" Get into the profundity or complexity of it all later. An impairment "hampers", "interferes with", or "gets in the way of" something somehow, doesn't it? I have only a vague idea of what "orthopedic" might mean. The word makes me think of bones, cartilage, muscles, and connective tissue, but after that, I'm lost. My apologies. Unfree (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)