4 ms·
The current title "ICJ genocide case: World court demands Israel limit deaths " isn't very accurate. I'd suggest reverting to the original "Top UN court orders
by ajb 3y ago
The current title "ICJ genocide case: World court demands Israel limit deaths " isn't very accurate. I'd suggest reverting to the original "Top UN court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of ordering cease-fire"
- dang 3y agoIt's the HTML doc title of the article, which is always an option for "original title" in the guidelines' sense of that term (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22html%20doc%20title%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). What's inaccurate about it? (Btw - thank you for posting the links in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163. We need those.)
- ajb 3y agoHuh, 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 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.
- ars 3y agoIsn'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-world-court-ruling-focuses-attack-south-gaza-2024-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-worl... if you want the title to match the HTML title.
- dang 3y agoI don't see how it's inflammatory. It seems strictly neutral to me, with the possible exception of the word 'demands'.
- ars 3y agoBecause 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?