←back to thread

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

(apnews.com)
517 points xbar | 4 comments | 26 Jan 24 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
ajb ◴[26 Jan 24 18:28 UTC] No.39146050[source]▶
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"
replies(1): >>39146152 #
dang ◴[26 Jan 24 18:35 UTC] No.39146152[source]▶
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://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. We need those.)

replies(2): >>39146302 #>>39146630 #
ars ◴[26 Jan 24 19:06 UTC] No.39146630[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>39147011 #
dang ◴[26 Jan 24 19:32 UTC] No.39147011[source]▶
I don't see how it's inflammatory. It seems strictly neutral to me, with the possible exception of the word 'demands'.
replies(1): >>39147268 #
1. ars ◴[26 Jan 24 19:51 UTC] No.39147268[source]▶
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?

replies(1): >>39147303 #
2. dang ◴[26 Jan 24 19:53 UTC] No.39147303[source]▶
Ok, I've changed it to the page title, shortened to fit HN's 80 char limit. Does that work?
replies(1): >>39147529 #
3. ars ◴[26 Jan 24 20:09 UTC] No.39147529[source]▶
Much better, thank you.
replies(1): >>39147612 #
4. dang ◴[26 Jan 24 20:16 UTC] No.39147612{3}[source]▶
Ok good, and thanks for the helpful explanation.