Talk:whitecoat washing
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ioaxxere in topic RFV discussion: January–February 2023
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
— SURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This one is tricky: there was a 2021 tweet referring to the media talking to doctors about issues related to nursing rather than to the nurses themselves, and others discussing the tweet. There's some usage of the "what she calls whitecoat washing" variety that might be enough for that sense to sneak by, depending on the use-mention distinction and on the "durably archived" issue. Then there was an editorial in August of last year with the title "Against Whitecoat Washing: The Need for Formal Human Rights Assessment in International Collaborations." Our entry is based on the latter, and the Google results aside from the editorial itself seem to be entirely footnoting or linking to the editorial by name. The only way that sense can pass is as a hot word, and I suspect it will hinge on wording in sources behind paywalls. I was still trying to decide whether to rfv this myself last night (in my time zone). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
RFV Failed - virtually all uses trace to the article mentioned above [1], maybe a few dusty PDFs will pop up. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)