Okay, I had missed that. You're right, I did put quotes around 'red' (like that) and I can now see why that was a communications failure on my part. In truth,

Okay, I had missed that. You're right, I did put quotes around 'red' (like that) and I can now see why that was a communications failure on my part. In truth, I had initially echoed the title with the single quotes around the 'red', and then gone back and put the whole phrase in double quotes while failing to remove the single quotes. However, the article clarifies neither why "'red' is 'red' in almost every language," nor "Why Red Means Read in Almost Every Language," as you seem to agree while mysteriously somehow also disagreeing with me. It is true that the article does not claim that red (category) matches bijectively across "almost every language," but that is my entire point. It is the title that introduces the notion that "Red" will somehow feature prominently in the content of the article, which it does not. We could argue about whether or not bijectivity is implied by the title, but that would be irrelevant. Regarding whether this is moving the goalposts, I rather disagree. It is the title that makes the claim that the why of anything at all will be addressed by the article. If it is moving the goalposts to point out that the article not only does not establish "Why Red Means Red" also lacks significant information about the "why" of anything, then it is surely moving the goalposts in the direction of the kicker. You wrote to affirm that the true meaning of the article's title referred in a sufficient way to the actual topic of the article, contra my apparent complaint. I see that there was a misunderstanding involved, but that aside — right, the title was not referring to the word 'red' — I disagree and actually I don't see how you can sustain any such argument.