3 ms·

I'm guessing OP has a strong bias on this since the article does not match the title and actually talks about how there is controversy over the claim.

thingalope 5y ago
Actually, the Guardian headline says “identified” too, because both of them understand that identification is not necessarily factual. Their headline is saying a fight/row broke out over someone identifying it as such. That can be true without it actually being that ship. Like identifying an unknown particle as something and ultimately being wrong. It doesn’t mean saying someone identified it as such is a certainty of identity. No reason to go after OP here at all. You’re misunderstanding the nuance of the verb “identify” here. There’s an implied “someone has” behind the “identified” in this usage.
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  It's misleading through omission. If someone says something has been identified you assume its correct unless they give further information that it might not be. That's an important distinction between the two titles. And I'm not "going after OP", just stating that they have a bias.
  - thingalope2 5y ago
    No, you don’t, because this is a common journalistic shorthand in English. The article is not reporting truth. It’s reporting that someone claims to have identified it. That distills to a shorthand verb “identified” in journalism a lot, which is not saying “the abstract truth of our existence has established this as so,” it’s saying “such and such group has claimed this is that”. If you think OP is misleading you through omission, again, this is a nuance of journalism that you’re overlooking (and possibly fair for you to overlook because it might be an English-specific thing, I’m unsure). The correct way to read OP’s headline is “someone claims X can be identified as Y”. Again, and please understand this point this time, identified is almost always implicitly prefixed by “someone claims to have”. Once you truly understand that point you’ll realize it’s impossible for you to be misled here. “Body identified as so-and-so” even occasionally changes as more information becomes available. It’s rare, but it does. The verb “to identify” is strongly distinct from “to be” and is centered on the idea that someone is reporting their conclusion which is often opinion. If you think you’re being misled, you’re reading it as “to be,” which is a dangerous idea to carry through the world of news in many ways.
    - thereddaikon 5y ago
      Being subject to change pending new information is not the same as actively under debate. I am aware of what identified means and how it is used. Identified never implies that qualified professionals are debating the topic.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jjulius 5y ago
It might not be a bad idea to check and see if the headline itself has changed from when it was originally posted, before implying bias or whatnot only to end up with egg meeting face... https://web.archive.org/web/20220203013548/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/03/captain-cook-ship-endeavour-identified-confirmed-shipwreck-us-rhode-island https://web.archive.org/web/20220203013548/https://www.thegu...

thingalope 5y ago

Actually, the Guardian headline says “identified” too, because both of them understand that identification is not necessarily factual. Their headline is saying a fight/row broke out over someone identifying it as such. That can be true without it actually being that ship. Like identifying an unknown particle as something and ultimately being wrong. It doesn’t mean saying someone identified it as such is a certainty of identity. No reason to go after OP here at all. You’re misunderstanding the nuance of the verb “identify” here. There’s an implied “someone has” behind the “identified” in this usage.

thereddaikon 5y ago
It's misleading through omission. If someone says something has been identified you assume its correct unless they give further information that it might not be. That's an important distinction between the two titles. And I'm not "going after OP", just stating that they have a bias.
- thingalope2 5y ago
  No, you don’t, because this is a common journalistic shorthand in English. The article is not reporting truth. It’s reporting that someone claims to have identified it. That distills to a shorthand verb “identified” in journalism a lot, which is not saying “the abstract truth of our existence has established this as so,” it’s saying “such and such group has claimed this is that”. If you think OP is misleading you through omission, again, this is a nuance of journalism that you’re overlooking (and possibly fair for you to overlook because it might be an English-specific thing, I’m unsure). The correct way to read OP’s headline is “someone claims X can be identified as Y”. Again, and please understand this point this time, identified is almost always implicitly prefixed by “someone claims to have”. Once you truly understand that point you’ll realize it’s impossible for you to be misled here. “Body identified as so-and-so” even occasionally changes as more information becomes available. It’s rare, but it does. The verb “to identify” is strongly distinct from “to be” and is centered on the idea that someone is reporting their conclusion which is often opinion. If you think you’re being misled, you’re reading it as “to be,” which is a dangerous idea to carry through the world of news in many ways.
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    Being subject to change pending new information is not the same as actively under debate. I am aware of what identified means and how it is used. Identified never implies that qualified professionals are debating the topic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jjulius 5y ago

It might not be a bad idea to check and see if the headline itself has changed from when it was originally posted, before implying bias or whatnot only to end up with egg meeting face... https://web.archive.org/web/20220203013548/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/03/captain-cook-ship-endeavour-identified-confirmed-shipwreck-us-rhode-island https://web.archive.org/web/20220203013548/https://www.thegu...