News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on N-gram Analysis of the New York Times Weddings Section. Parent comment

Re:N-gram Analysis of the New York Times Weddings Section by daniper on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @12:38PM (#6328702)
They have editorial discretion. I'd be curious to know what the "acceptance rate", so to speak is... I know for a fact that a couple I know was rejected specifically because one of them was undergoing gender reassignment and the NYT didn't know which personal (gender) pronoun to use for him.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:N-gram Analysis of the New York Times Weddings Section by mason240 on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @03:15PM (#6329749)
The NYT said they rejected it for that reason, or that is what you friend assumed to be the case?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:N-gram Analysis of the New York Times Weddings Section by Haul4ss on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @06:35PM (#6330964)
AP StyleBook says to use the gender the individual identifies as. Thus why all the news media now reports on Chelsea Manning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:N-gram Analysis of the New York Times Weddings Section by mtdewcmu on Wednesday September 04, 2013 @04:43PM (#6330333)
Maybe a different section would have printed it. I'm kind of interested.
[ Parent | on HN ]