{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04878048780487805, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028694404591104736, 'mean_word_length': 4.915254237288136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
pi NN coupling, the pi N N- form factor, and the Goldberger-Treiman discrepancy.

We discuss the recent suggestion by Thomas and Holinde that the neutral {pi}{ital NN} coupling constant obtained in the Nijmegan phase-shift analysis of {ital pp} scattering data differs from the charged {pi}{ital NN} coupling constant because of a form-factor effect and therefore is not an indication of charge independence. We place this suggestion in the context of a more global understanding of the {pi}{ital NN} form factor, and specify carefully the distinction between the chiral limit and the {ital q}{sup 2}=0 limit to clarify the role of the {pi}{ital NN} form factor in the Goldberger-Treiman relation.