Talk:Susan G. Komen Foundation reneges on Planned Parenthood funding cuts
Add topicReview of revision 1393356 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 1393356 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1393356 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
NPOV rename
[edit]{{flag}}
Rename to "Susan G. Komen Foundation reverses position on Planned Parenthood funding cuts". No news org. reports "reneges". NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sid (talk • contribs)
- I much prefer the title you've proposed. If you'd proposed it within 24 hours after publication, I'd have embraced it without hesitation. Since it's more than 24 hours since publication, though, it seems to me a {{correction}} notice would be required. I'll consider how such might be worded, and if I come up with something that works for me, I'll submit it for review. --Pi zero (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, the phrasing I came up with seemed appropriate to me, so I've submitted it for consideration by another reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I see some of the points, but does "reneges" really a weasel word break NPOV? It simply means that someone/something reversed their decision about something they were going to do (see Reneges). Also, other news organizations have used it Forbes:FDA Reneges on Promise to Consider Limits to Animal Antibiotics. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that there are two different shadings of understanding of renege. I've talked to people about the word irl since the issue came up here, and noted this difference.
- In some people's dialect/idiolect, renege simply means reverse position.
- In another mainstream usage it carries the stronger suggestion of failing to do something that should have been done — note wikt:renege and w:renege. It's the "should have been done" that presents a potential difficulty for NPOV, given how emotionally charged the abortion issue has become in the US.
- --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a Note on this article? The more I think about it, the more it seems the real message is "we're warning you about the use of this word in the title because you might have misunderstood what we meant by it", so perhaps we shouldn't have the note at all. I gather cocoaguy thinks we shouldn't. The user who raised the issue presumably thinks we should. Other assessments? --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not know if this is a Mid-Atlantic regional usage, but to me, the word "renege" has always meant to break a promise, which seems to me to be the complete opposite of the news here, as SGK went back to keeping their promise of funding. My initial reaction to the headline was that they had changed their minds and pulled funding again. Cosumel (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see how you could get that connotation, but at the time of writing I was trying to imply Susan G Komen had reneged on the promise of cutting the funds. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 03:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)