Wugs, if its an Anglo root, unless it’s derived from Latin “Wug*, wugīs” in which case there are two Wugi (wûg-eye). Unless its one of the random Latin words where we don’t do that and it’s still “wugs.” Unless it’s a loanword from germanic then we might anglicise it or we might say “wugar.” Because eNgLIsH iS EaSY…
“Church’s role in harming kids…”
That’s a funny way to spell “church officials raping kids…”
Editorial watering down like this is disgusting. Even if it wasn’t intentional, if you as the reporter aren’t comfortable calling sexual abuse rape in a headline and have to water it down to “harm,” that’s another reason to keep it full-strength. If it makes people mad, good. The truth should make people mad in cases like this.