I think it’s pointless to quibble about very specific things like this, but that gets thrown out the window when someone claims “Definitions are the very basics in writing, check them before you publish” and then use their own nonstandard definition!
Seems like they wanted to nitpick about term usage when:
a) the usage they’re taking issue with is actually fairly commonplace (e.g. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-10-2017-who-to-review-its-i...)
b) their own suggested replacement is very heterodox (I’ve certainly never heard anyone call it that).
I think it’s pointless to quibble about very specific things like this, but that gets thrown out the window when someone claims “Definitions are the very basics in writing, check them before you publish” and then use their own nonstandard definition!
Seems like they wanted to nitpick about term usage when: a) the usage they’re taking issue with is actually fairly commonplace (e.g. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-10-2017-who-to-review-its-i...) b) their own suggested replacement is very heterodox (I’ve certainly never heard anyone call it that).