3 ms·

it can be argued the title of the article on reuters is misleading or inaccurate, because the cuts are not complete op meant to say "will", which would have ma

it can be argued the title of the article on reuters is misleading or inaccurate, because the cuts are not complete op meant to say "will", which would have made for a less ambiguous title. but confusing that with "would" is a common mistake, and it's especially forgivable since "would" was used in the introductory paragraph in a way that appears non-conditional i don't think a simple translation error warrants a bunch of slippery-sloping about The Rules and telling them "if your English isn't perfect, maybe work on that before posting here"

toomanyrichies 4y ago
> "if your English isn't perfect, maybe work on that before posting here" That isn't what I said, is it? I welcome their posts. But if English isn't their first language, maybe they should trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline, rather than thinking they know better or trying to editorialize. > it can be argued the title of the article on reuters is misleading or inaccurate, because the cuts are not complete That's not necessarily true. News headlines have a number of grammatical idiosyncracies, of which the use of present-tense to refer to past (or future) actions is one. [1] They're kind of a grammatical minefield, which is all the more reason to trust the original headline author instead of editorializing. 1. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/weblines/521.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  While I agree that there's not a good reason for OP to have changed the title, both OP and the journalist are Indian, and saying the OP should 'trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline' is a bit ignorant.
  - toomanyrichies 4y ago
    > saying the OP should 'trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline' is a bit ignorant. Serious question- how is this ignorant? I genuinely don't see how that follows from what I said, since nothing in my comment implies that Indians have inherently inferior English-language communication skills, or that Indian-English is somehow inferior to the vernacular I use. It simply states that one individual (i.e. OP) should have trusted the abilities of another individual (Chavi Mehta, the journalist). > both OP and the journalist are Indian I really don't see how the journalist's ethnicity is relevant, and I'd love some clarification on why you do. Regardless of where they're from, they were hired by Reuters, a news outlet which publishes content in English. I'd be willing to bet that they were vetted for this job at least in part on their ability to write in the vernacular used by Reuters. OP had no reason to doubt the effectiveness of that process, and should therefore have "trusted the English-language abilities of the journalist...", as I said. OP themself was a bit ignorant (of the HN guidelines, not in the sense that you mean) when they edited the headline. It's also a bit arrogant for them to assume they're better at crafting headlines than the entire team responsible for publishing the story (the journalist, their editor, the Reuters proofreaders, etc.). All that said, I've already invested way more effort into this conversation than is warranted by OP's (relatively minor) faux pas. I decline to continue participating.
    - d1sxeyes 4y ago
      > nothing in my comment implies that Indians have inherently inferior English-language communication skills I’m not sure how implying English is not their first language does not call English language communication skills into question. Incidentally, you are likely correct, as very few Indians speak English as a first language. > I really don't see how the journalist's ethnicity is relevant, and I'd love some clarification on why you do. Ethnicity is not relevant, cultural context is. Likely neither OP nor the journalist speak English as a first language. > It's also a bit arrogant for them to assume they're better at crafting headlines than the entire team responsible for publishing the story Reuters is a news agency. Their headlines are supposed to be uneditorialised almost by definition. It’s not about being “better at crafting headlines”, it’s about adding an editorial slant to a neutral headline. I agree that it was the wrong thing to do, but news outlets the world over will “craft” different headlines for this story based on the same wire story. > I decline to continue participating. OK.

toomanyrichies 4y ago

> "if your English isn't perfect, maybe work on that before posting here" That isn't what I said, is it? I welcome their posts. But if English isn't their first language, maybe they should trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline, rather than thinking they know better or trying to editorialize. > it can be argued the title of the article on reuters is misleading or inaccurate, because the cuts are not complete That's not necessarily true. News headlines have a number of grammatical idiosyncracies, of which the use of present-tense to refer to past (or future) actions is one. [1] They're kind of a grammatical minefield, which is all the more reason to trust the original headline author instead of editorializing. 1. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/weblines/521.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general...

d1sxeyes 4y ago
While I agree that there's not a good reason for OP to have changed the title, both OP and the journalist are Indian, and saying the OP should 'trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline' is a bit ignorant.
- toomanyrichies 4y ago
  > saying the OP should 'trust the English-language abilities of the journalist who wrote the headline' is a bit ignorant. Serious question- how is this ignorant? I genuinely don't see how that follows from what I said, since nothing in my comment implies that Indians have inherently inferior English-language communication skills, or that Indian-English is somehow inferior to the vernacular I use. It simply states that one individual (i.e. OP) should have trusted the abilities of another individual (Chavi Mehta, the journalist). > both OP and the journalist are Indian I really don't see how the journalist's ethnicity is relevant, and I'd love some clarification on why you do. Regardless of where they're from, they were hired by Reuters, a news outlet which publishes content in English. I'd be willing to bet that they were vetted for this job at least in part on their ability to write in the vernacular used by Reuters. OP had no reason to doubt the effectiveness of that process, and should therefore have "trusted the English-language abilities of the journalist...", as I said. OP themself was a bit ignorant (of the HN guidelines, not in the sense that you mean) when they edited the headline. It's also a bit arrogant for them to assume they're better at crafting headlines than the entire team responsible for publishing the story (the journalist, their editor, the Reuters proofreaders, etc.). All that said, I've already invested way more effort into this conversation than is warranted by OP's (relatively minor) faux pas. I decline to continue participating.
  - d1sxeyes 4y ago
    > nothing in my comment implies that Indians have inherently inferior English-language communication skills I’m not sure how implying English is not their first language does not call English language communication skills into question. Incidentally, you are likely correct, as very few Indians speak English as a first language. > I really don't see how the journalist's ethnicity is relevant, and I'd love some clarification on why you do. Ethnicity is not relevant, cultural context is. Likely neither OP nor the journalist speak English as a first language. > It's also a bit arrogant for them to assume they're better at crafting headlines than the entire team responsible for publishing the story Reuters is a news agency. Their headlines are supposed to be uneditorialised almost by definition. It’s not about being “better at crafting headlines”, it’s about adding an editorial slant to a neutral headline. I agree that it was the wrong thing to do, but news outlets the world over will “craft” different headlines for this story based on the same wire story. > I decline to continue participating. OK.