It happened AGAIN, today, at the Google Doodle...

It's still wrong.

Elsewhere, in April 2020, I said:

Why do the professional media - plus the people who create Google Doodles - so often say "birthday" when they really mean "anniversary"? Especially when they're referring to, say, an 80th anniversary? Why risk confusing readers who didn't already know that so-and-so is dead? If they were stricter about the use of both words, then, whenever they said "so-and-so's 100th birthday is coming up," it would be a wonderful surprise to those readers who didn't know that person was still alive.

Chrysi Cat said:

"Because you really /do/ need to specify, in American English, "anniversary of birth". Through natural linguistic drift, the un-modified term has come to refer specifically to a wedding anniversary, and I feel (though Dorothy has actual TRAINING in the subject and I'm a dilettante with no formal education beyond several quarters I flunked out of at two uni's) that it's likely an irreversible shift at this point.

"Maybe what we need is a _coinage_ for 'anniversary of birth of a deceased person'?

"But the problem there is, for the first several years, people are as likely to misunderstand that coinage just as much as they could have problems with your now- 'non standard' usage of 'anniversary', un-modified, in the subject line."

Me:
I don't think we need a new word. Very few adults read "100th anniversary" and think that that person is alive - or that it has anything to do with a wedding. Of course, no one reads "200th birthday" and thinks THAT person is alive either, but consistency is important.

The Lancet, of course. My wife and I have discussed whether or not there are any institutions anywhere that haven't been corrupted in some way. The only three we could come up with are the Salvation Army, the Taliban and Texas high school football. Don't laugh at the last; the role high school football plays in the life of Texas cannot be overstated. From small towns to suburbs and the largest cities there is high school football, and it's just like it was in 1961, except for the very few female players. Nothing else has changed. The best get to play, and there are winners and losers and participation trophies just don't exist.

Speaking of, the female football players in Texas tend to be in small towns where the other players tend to be smaller than in the urban areas, and they are almost always kickers. And they have to qualify to be on the teams. No affirmative action in Texas high school football. And they're female, and not at all confused about their gender. They're women, and they're proud of it, and they're treated with respect by their teammates and the opposing team. That doesn't mean they won't get knocked on their ass, of course.

But the Lancet. My wife and I read things like this and we just shake our heads. Another institution fallen, the rot within too great. We abhor the Taliban, but we both have a sort of grudging respect for them; if nothing else they are consistent. They are today what they were at their beginning; they don't compromise to suit the trends of the day.

And the Sally just keeps marching on. Godly people doing good for others. The LGBTQer's have attacked them in the past about various trendy issues, and the Sally just shrugs them off and carries on.