Comment by dang
1 year ago
It's the HTML doc title of the article, which is always an option for "original title" in the guidelines' sense of that term (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163. We need those.)
1 year ago
It's the HTML doc title of the article, which is always an option for "original title" in the guidelines' sense of that term (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163. We need those.)
Huh, firefox no longer displays that! I didn't realize that before.
Well, there is already discussion of the meaning of Measure 1) "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular" part a) "killing members of the group", at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39143094, so perhaps the confusion can be worked out there. I don't think it's as simple as "limit deaths" but perhaps I'm wrong, not being a lawyer.
Isn't there a rule about modifying inflamatory titles? The article title "Top UN court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of ordering cease-fire" is less inflamatory, and will help prevent comments from going sideways.
Or you can switch to https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-worl... if you want the title to match the HTML title.
I don't see how it's inflammatory. It seems strictly neutral to me, with the possible exception of the word 'demands'.
Because the ceasefire was the number one demand by the South Africa. And they lost that, but the current title completely ignores that part, and instead highlights only the part that Israel lost.
That's like exactly the definition of the opposite of neutral: ignoring the part Israel won and only focusing on the part they lost.
And the fact that it ignores the major part of the case and focuses only on the minor part, only makes it more egregious.
Even the actual news source themselves changed the title, and for some reason you consider the HTML title more important?
3 replies →